Ultimately, the House overwhelmingly supported the bill. Backers argued it would give teachers a chance to protect their classrooms in the minutes before police respond to a school shooting.

“This chasm of vulnerability, this gap, is something we can’t close,” Hill, R-Eagle, said during a lengthy debate. “We just have to give these people the opportunity to defend themselves.”

The National Rifle Association-backed legislation would grant school employees — from teachers to secretaries to bus drivers — the right to carry guns on public school campuses, as long as they have an enhanced concealed weapons permit.

Fifty-three House Republicans voted to approve House Bill 415. Five Republicans joined the 11 Democrats in the House to oppose it.

Hill spent much of Wednesday’s debate answering questions, particularly about training, liability and local control. Many lawmakers were skeptical of ceding local school board authority to regulate staff firearms.

That was a deal-breaker for Rep. Jack Nelsen, R-Jerome, who said he otherwise “loves the intent of the bill.” Nelsen, and others, noted that districts currently allowing guns on campus have stricter vetting and training requirements.

“It cuts those guys off at the knees,” Nelsen said.

To get an enhanced concealed carry permit, applicants must complete eight hours of classroom training and fire a minimum of 98 practice rounds. Law enforcement officials have said that may not be adequate, and even if it was, there’s no recurring training requirements. Under the bill, school leaders could not mandate additional training than what’s already required to get the permit.

During a committee hearing last week, Hill said it’s “irrelevant” whether school trustees know who’s carrying a gun. And he’s brushed aside calls for more training. Most people carrying firearms at school will probably be “proficient,” he said Wednesday.

“They’re going to be comfortable — probably hunters,” Hill said. “People are concerned about the training, I am not.”

And supporters of the bill argued Wednesday that it’s up to an individual teacher to decide how they protect themselves and their students.

“That is our constitutional right,” said Rep. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle. “We’ve somehow segmented an area where we’ve got vulnerable kids and expected these teachers to deal with a potential massive situation without anything to protect themselves or the kids.”

A few Republicans appeared to have grave anxieties about the bill but ended up supporting it. Before casting a green light, Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint, said he had “real concerns.”

“This just begs for continuous and consistent and some pretty detailed training,” Sauter said. “That’s what I was really looking for, and I’m not seeing that.”

Democrats, on the other hand, slammed the bill. House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, of Boise, suggested it’s motivated by an action-movie “fantasy,” wherein a good guy takes down a bad guy. But more often than not, accidents happen, like someone misplaces a gun or has bad aim, Rubel said.

“There are an awful lot of things that can go wrong in this situation,” she said.

House Bill 415 now heads to the Senate. As it advances, there remains some unsettled questions about a provision that would protect school employees from legal liability.

Rep. John Gannon, a Democrat from Boise and an attorney, said the bill would grant broad immunity from liability “whether you use the gun, don’t use the gun, whether you hit the wrong object or a person.”

But Hill said the liability provision only applies to the decision to engage or not engage in a gunfight. “Once you engage, you have the same liability and responsibility as anybody else,” he said. “If you shoot, you are responsible for what you shoot, just like everyone else.”

New bill would create State Board regions

State Board of Education members would be appointed by geographic region under a new bill introduced Wednesday. 

Historically, there’s been an “informal understanding” that the board would have statewide representation, but there have been “ebbs and flows” in following that standard, said Republican Rep. Britt Raybould, of Rexburg. 

Raybould’s bill would create seven regions for the seven-member State Board. The governor would continue to appoint board members but each appointee would have to be a resident of one of the regions. 

The bill comes amid a push to require elections for the State Board. Last year, a bill to require regional elections to the board narrowly failed in the House. Raybould’s proposal is a “reasonable response” to the concerns motivating that push and would “negate the need for elections,” she told the House Education Committee. 

When drawing the region boundaries, recognizing school district boundaries and maintaining roughly equivalent populations were priorities, Raybould said. But she recognized that would be an “imperfect system.” 

If approved, the bill would assign current board members a region — not necessarily related to their residency — and allow them to finish their terms. Subsequent appointments would have to abide by the geographic requirements. State Board members serve five-year terms.

Alex Adams, Gov. Brad Little’s budget chief, appeared to satisfy early skepticism for a bill that would overhaul Idaho’s charter school regulations. 

The House Education Committee almost unanimously advanced the legislation after a lengthy public hearing Thursday. Dubbed the “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act,” the bill is a sweeping revision of the rules governing charter school applications, operations and reauthorizations.

Charter school administrators and policymakers mostly praised the effort, which supporters have touted as a consolidation of lessons learned in the 26 years since Idaho enacted charters.

But the bill also is a response to recent strife in and around the Public Charter School Commission, the group responsible for authorizing and overseeing most of Idaho’s charters. Leadership instability over the last year has shed light on philosophical differences about the Commission’s role: Should it be a support agency that helps underperforming charters improve, or an oversight body that more aggressively holds schools accountable?

Those who worked on the bill, including the governor’s office and commissioners, sought to strike a balance, Adams told the Education Committee. 

“What we tried to accomplish…was (to) balance accountability with earned autonomy,” he said. “A lot of what I tried to do in this bill is separate the high performers from the not-so-high performers.” 

For high-performing charters, that means extended renewal periods, less “red tape” required to replicate a charter school and shorter performance reviews, which Adams likened to TSA PreCheck. 

And for under-performing charters, the bill would allow authorizers to intervene more quickly in response to distress signals, like declining enrollment, Adams said. Struggling charters also would have access to the Idaho Department of Education’s building capacity program. 

Staffed by a team of experts, the program helps schools diagnose performance problems, Adams said, and the governor’s budget this year includes additional funding for charter schools to access those resources.

“We’ve blended the sweet with the sour,” he said. 

Rep. Lance Clow said he initially “had a bunch of questions,” but they were “properly answered” Thursday. The bill would “simplify and coordinate” the Charter School Commission and school authorization process, said Clow, R-Twin Falls. 

Here are some highlights from the bill: 

• It would allow new charter schools to operate for six years, up from five years, while established charters could get a 12-year renewal
• Allow charter holders with multiple schools to enroll as a single local education agency
• Allow charter schools to operate daycare and after school programs as long as they don’t use state funds
• Create a special category of “pilot charters,” which are granted three-year terms to “test an innovative or novel model”
• Allow charter schools to receive funding from private organizations

Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, and Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, are the legislative co-sponsors of HB 422. But Thursday’s hearing showed the governor’s office was the driving force behind it, and a bevy of charter school stakeholders provided input over the bill’s five-month development.

One charter administrator criticized a provision of the bill that could limit how much a school could grow its enrollment. Otherwise, charter administrators lauded the proposal, noting it would streamline administrative work and allow schools to focus on teaching. 

“It puts everything in one place, makes it simpler to get into the law and look at what applies to us — when we need to do what and how we’re held accountable,” said Andy Johnson, executive director for Sage International, a network of Treasure Valley charters. 

Not everyone was on-board, however. The League of Women Voters strongly opposed the bill over concerns that it would diminish the Department of Education’s role in regulating charters, among other things.

The proposed pilot program for new charters allows “testing experimental educational approaches on children,” said Jean Henscheid, co-president of the group. 

State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield briefly said that the Department of Education is “fully supportive” of the bill.

An earlier draft made the Public Charter School Commission a self-governing agency, but the Commission would remain under the State Board of Education’s purview in the current version of the bill. 

Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise, was the only Education Committee member to oppose a motion to advance HB 422. Concerned that removing limitations could allow charter school numbers to explode, Berch said the Department of Education would be on the hook to “support what’s essentially a private enterprise.”

Whether the legislation would resolve the conflict over the Commission’s fundamental role remains to be seen. Terry Ryan, CEO of Bluum, a major charter school investor, is optimistic. The bill offers support to under-performing charter schools, but “that doesn’t mean that’s going to keep you alive forever,” Ryan told Idaho Education News after the hearing. 

“At some point, the school has to deliver results and show that it works for kids,” he said. “I think they got the balance right.”

Disclosure: Idaho Education News and Bluum are funded by grants from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation. 

Despite fervent opposition from school trustees, administrators and teachers as well as concern from law enforcement officials, Idaho Republicans advanced a bill that would grant school employees the right to carry guns in classrooms and give them legal immunity if they engage in a gunfight on campus.

After a tense public hearing Wednesday, in which most testimony strongly opposed the proposal, the House State Affairs Committee voted along party lines to advance House Bill 415. 

The National Rifle Association-backed legislation would grant school employees — from teachers to secretaries to bus drivers — the right to carry guns on public school campuses, as long as they have an enhanced concealed weapons permit. 

“These select school employees will provide an armed force to protect children in the first minutes of an attack,” bill sponsor Rep. Ted Hill said. “We don’t want to have a stack of 20 kids dead in a classroom because we didn’t do anything.”

The statewide teachers union and groups representing school boards and administrators slammed the proposal for sidestepping trustees and parents. Neither an elected school board nor parents could stop guns from being in their district’s classrooms “and that is really troubling,” said Paul Stark, executive director of the Idaho Education Association.

“As far as we can see, no educators are actually asking for this,” Stark told the committee. “There has been some testimony this session about not trusting librarians with books, but this trusts librarians with a Glock.”

Current Idaho law makes it a misdemeanor to bring a gun on a school campus. But school boards can authorize teachers to carry, and some do. The bill would take that decision out of trustees’ hands and fine school districts if leaders try to make their campuses “gun-free zones.” 

Under HB 415, enhanced concealed carry permit-holders who intend to carry on campus would have to inform their principal, and the principal would need to maintain a list of campus carriers to share with the police. Those lists would be kept secret and exempt from disclosure under Idaho’s public records law. 

Quinn Perry, deputy director for the Idaho School Boards Association, said the legislation would be “completely impractical” to implement, and she questioned the lack of training required for employees who intend to carry on campus.

To get an enhanced concealed weapons permit in Idaho, one must complete eight hours of firearm training and give their fingerprints to Idaho State Police. But school districts that currently allow teachers to carry guns, like Mountain View, require active shooter training, Perry said. 

“They do this groundwork to make sure that parents, staff, community members have the buy-in before they authorize their staff to carry,” she said. 

Idaho law enforcement officials did not testify Wednesday, but they have raised similar concerns directly with the bill sponsors. Jeff Lavey, executive director of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, said his members worry that the training required for an enhanced concealed weapons permit is “not adequate to carry (a gun) in a school environment.” And even if it was adequate, the training is “one and done” as long as the permit doesn’t expire, he said. 

“There is a reason law enforcement trains yearly on active shooter scenarios,” Lavey told Idaho Education News by email.

The Sheriffs’ Association also opposes a provision in the bill that grants “absolute immunity” from civil or criminal legal action if a school employee chooses to use their weapon and is “wrong in their perceived threat,” Lavey said. The Association has yet to take an official stance on the bill but could vote on it later this week. 

“Our sheriffs are not opposed to guns in schools,” Lavey said. “We just believe it needs to be done right, and what works in one community does not necessarily work in another.”

The State Affairs Committee’s two Democrats grilled Hill on the legal immunity provision and the fact that school volunteers, not just employees, would be granted a right to carry guns on campus. The Republican from Eagle was noticeably peevish during one exchange with former Boise School District superintendent Don Coberly, who is filling in for Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise. 

Coberly started to ask about sidestepping school board authority. “It would seem to me that, especially in a small district, it would make sense for the school board to have knowledge…” he began, before Hill cut him off.  “Why do they need to know?” Hill snapped. “This comes down to the principal, who’s protecting the school, not the superintendent, somewhere else.”

Rep. John Gannon, D-Boise, repeatedly asked whether Hill or the NRA has surveyed educators and parents about the proposal, particularly in the Boise area. 

“A survey here is not necessary, a survey was not taken,” said Aoibheann Cline, Idaho state director for the NRA. “Here, where we have the school boards that are not authorizing this, it’s for a reason…They think the gun is the problem.”

Aside from the NRA representative, one person testified in support of the bill: Robert Gillis, of Idaho Tough on Crime, a group that advocates for harsher sentences for child predators and fentanyl traffickers. Gillis said he’s a retired police sergeant who was on the scene of a 2019 school shooting in Southern California that left three students dead, including the shooter.

“We have to do something drastic to protect our kids, because nothing has been done so far,” Gillis said.

Gannon moved to delay a vote on the bill, which was introduced Monday, to allow more people to read it. All 11 Republicans voted down that motion and supported a separate motion to send the legislation to the full House, recommending that it pass. 

Rep. Julianne Young, R-Blackfoot, said she had received dozens of emails in support of the bill during the committee meeting. “I think I’d be hard pressed to think that folks haven’t had the chance to be aware.”

Teachers could get funds for out-of-pocket classroom expenses

A new bill would help public school teachers finance classroom expenses like books, cleaning supplies and technology. 

Teachers often pay, out-of-pocket, “hundreds of dollars or more” to equip their classrooms, said Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle. Herndon’s bill would give teachers a to-be-determined amount in state funds for buying paper towels, posters, arts and crafts and other supplies.

The Idaho Department of Education would oversee the purchasing system, according to the bill. And the funds could not be used on administrative expenses, only classroom supplies.  

Herndon sponsored a similar bill last year. It had unanimous support in the Senate but didn’t get a hearing in the House. The new version removed professional development as an eligible expense, and added that the allowance could be rolled over for one year before it expires. 

The bill leaves it to the Legislature’s budget committee to decide how much each teacher would get. Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, asked Herndon to bring a “ballpark” estimate of what the program would cost to a forthcoming public hearing on the bill.

That’s one major change in a fresh draft of the sweeping legislation first introduced last week by Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale. The original bill made the Charter Commission a self-governing agency. 

“We did hear the comments from the committee and the public,” Boyle said Tuesday. “It’s back under the State Board, where it should be.”

The second draft is also five pages longer, which didn’t ease concerns of some lawmakers who seemed overwhelmed by the first draft and remained skeptical Tuesday. 

“I’m troubled, in general, by the 36-page bill, which has an indeterminate number of moving parts in it,” said Rep. Steve Berch, D-Boise. “I’m not confident that I even know what I’m voting on.”

Otherwise, the bill appears to be largely the same. Supporters have said the overhaul incorporates lessons learned since the state opened the door to charter schools in 1998. The tweaks include: 

• Allowing new charter schools to operate for six years, up from five years, while established charters could get a 12-year renewal
• Allowing charter holders with multiple schools to enroll as a single local education agency 
• Allowing charter schools to operate day care and after school programs as long as they don’t use state funds
• Creating a special category of “pilot charters,” which are granted three-year terms to “test an innovative or novel model”
• Allowing charter schools to receive funding from private organizations 

Charter Commission board members last month voted to endorse the bill, and the governor’s office has vetted it.

Rep. Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, asked the bill sponsors to provide a one-page summary of major changes from the original draft before the committee hosts a public hearing, which has yet to be scheduled. 

Rep. Soñia Galaviz, D-Boise, requested that sponsors invite stakeholders who would be impacted by the legislation. 

“They all weighed in on this,” Boyle responded. “I’m sure they’ll be here.”

It’s not the first time Idaho lawmakers will debate arming teachers, and some school districts already allow teachers to have guns on campus. But the bill would explicitly allow a wide range of employees, who have enhanced concealed weapon permits, to carry guns at school. 

Currently, it’s a misdemeanor to bring a gun on a public school campus, but law enforcement and school peace officers are exempt from that law. When a school shooting occurs, police take five to seven minutes to respond and school security guards are cost prohibitive, said Rep. Ted Hill. 

Arming teachers would offer “an opportunity to leverage organic capability within the schools,” Hill, R-Eagle, told the House State Affairs Committee Monday. “There’s a desperate need to secure our schools against people who want to harm our children.”

Along with teachers, the bill allows administrators, counselors, librarians, teacher’s aides, coaches, business managers, secretaries, janitors and bus drivers to carry a weapon on school grounds. 

School staff would need an enhanced concealed weapons permit to carry a gun on campus. Permit-holders are required to give their fingerprints to Idaho State Police, and they have to complete eight hours of firearm training.

School employees who intend to carry on campus would have to inform their principal, according to the bill. And principals would need to maintain a list of armed employees that’s shared with the local police department or sheriff’s office. Those lists would be exempt from public disclosure. 

The legislation also would bar schools from posting “gun-free zone” signs. “That just basically is an advertisement that this is a sheep’s pen, come on in and take advantage,” Hill said. 

Last week, lawmakers on the House Education Committee asked officials from the State Board of Education’s School Safety and Security program to comment on arming teachers. Stu Hobson, the program’s school resource officer support coordinator, said armed teachers who engage with an active shooter could look like a threat to police in a “very chaotic” situation. 

Responding law enforcement officers might not have time to distinguish between an armed teacher and an active shooter, Hobson said, and “they’re probably going to take action to stop that threat.”

Hill’s bill requires school districts to share photos of campus weapon-carriers with law enforcement, to “assist” officers “in the exercise of their duties.”

Bill: After recall, school trustees can’t vote on board decisions

Rep. Mark Sauter on Monday introduced a bill that would block recalled school trustees from participating in board meetings. The proposal comes after a pair of West Bonner trustees last year tried to call a special meeting of the school board hours before an election to recall them was certified. 

A court order stopped that meeting from happening, but the proposal from Sauter, R-Sandpoint, would codify that recalled trustees can’t vote on board business between a successful recall election and its official certification.

“That could be 24 hours, it could be up to 10 days,” Sauter said. “You would just not be a voting member of that group.”

Sauter’s bill also would clarify that a recalled trustee is officially removed from the board when the results are certified — meaning, no board action would be required to remove the trustee. 

The new bill would allow a school board with one or more vacancies to conduct meeting business if a majority of the remaining members are present. Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, last week introduced a bill that would also clarify quorum requirements but did not include the recall elements. 

If it has a public hearing, Sauter’s proposal likely will face resistance. Three North Idaho Republicans — Reps. Elaine Price, of Coeur d’Alene, Dale Hawkins, of Fernwood, and Tony Wisniewski, of Post Falls — opposed a motion to introduce the bill.

New bill would ban diversity statements at universities

A Republican lawmaker Monday introduced a bill barring colleges and universities from using “diversity statements” in their hiring and admissions decisions. 

The bill, from Meridian Sen. Treg Bernt, targets universities that ask job candidates to explain how they’ll advance the institution’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion. The bill would bar Idaho postsecondary public schools from requiring any such statement as a condition of admission or employment. 

“Hiring and admission decisions…shall be made on merit, and that is an important word,” Bernt told the Senate State Affairs Committee.

The State Board of Education already barred universities from asking job applicants to sign diversity statements. And it’s unclear whether that was commonplace in Idaho before the State Board last year adopted a resolution banning the practice. 

But DEI has become a polemical issue among Republicans in recent years. Bernt’s proposal could be part of a suite of bills targeting DEI at Idaho universities this legislative session. Nampa Republican Sen. Brian Lenney recently announced that he’s working on a bill to outlaw spending on DEI programs. 

Similar legislation is moving through statehouses elsewhere. The Utah House last week approved a bill that would “unravel” DEI programs at state universities, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. 

On Monday, Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, of Boise, said she has “a lot of questions” about Bernt’s proposal, including how it will interact with universities’ census reporting requirements. 

“What’s the problem going on, and what are you trying to solve?” Wintrow said. 

The bill could return to the committee for a public hearing in the coming days or weeks.

Last week, Rep. Elaine Price and Sen. Brian Lenney introduced a joint resolution to repeal the Blaine Amendment, a section of the Idaho Constitution — and dozens of other state constitutions — that bars taxpayer funds from benefitting private religious schools. 

The provision is “null and void,” Price said, thanks to recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on alike prohibitions in Montana and Maine. Other lawmakers who support private school vouchers have made similar claims in recent years, but Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, went a step further: Two Idaho attorneys general have agreed that Blaine is “no longer effective,” she told the House State Affairs Committee.

That’s not true, according to legal analysis and advice from the offices of Attorney General Raúl Labrador and his predecessor Lawrence Wasden, who are both Republicans. The Idaho attorney general’s office since 2020 has held that the Supreme Court rulings on “no-aid provisions,” like the Blaine Amendment, are state-specific. 

In other words, whether an Idaho private school voucher program runs afoul of the Blaine Amendment will have to be settled in court on its own merits. 

“The U.S. Supreme Court did not address Idaho’s no-aid provision, much less even cite it,” former Deputy Attorney General Brian Church wrote in a 2020 opinion, which Labrador recently said he agrees with. 

The effectiveness of the Blaine Amendment is highly relevant to Idaho’s ongoing, bitter debate over whether taxpayer funds should go to private schools, most of which are faith-based. 

The recent Supreme Court rulings were considered major victories for the national “school choice” movement that’s pushing the Idaho Legislature to enact private school tuition assistance programs, often called school vouchers. But the Blaine Amendment — a provision as old as the state itself — remains a barrier. 

“If the Blaine Amendment was a dead letter, why would they think it’s necessary to come up with a constitutional amendment?” said Jim Jones, former Idaho Supreme Court justice and attorney general. If a school voucher program is adopted, “there’s very well going to be a lawsuit brought to try and stop it,” he said. 

What the Supreme Court decisions mean for Idaho

In 2020, Wasden’s office issued an opinion analyzing the Idaho implications for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

The case involved a Montana tax credit program, created in 2015, that helps private school families pay tuition. The state barred tax credit recipients from using the benefit at religious schools; Montana’s constitution also prohibits public funding for religious schools. 

After a lengthy legal battle, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Montana’s decision to exclude religious schools from a program accessible to secular private schools was discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. In 2022, the court similarly ruled that a Maine tuition program must include religious schools if it also benefits secular private schools. 

The Espinoza ruling “only addressed” Montana’s no-aid provision and “only held it was unconstitutional as applied to the particular scholarship program,” Church wrote in the opinion from Wasden’s office. The Espinoza ruling did not decide whether all no-aid provisions are constitutional, “either on their face or as applied in a particular situation,” he wrote.

Labrador believes the Montana case had a “significant impact” on Idaho’s Blaine Amendment, and he agrees with the legal analysis from Wasden’s office, said Dan Estes, Labrador’s spokesman. 

“In essence, if the state of Idaho adopts a law that gives a government benefit to a private entity and denies that same benefit to a religious entity solely on the basis that it is a religious entity, that law could be found to be unconstitutional,” Estes said by email. 

While the court set a precedent that likely would invalidate any private school voucher programs that exclude parochial schools, that yardstick is wielded on a case-by-case basis. 

“Of course, the Idaho Legislature can initiate the process of removing a section of the Idaho Constitution at any time,” Estes added.

Idaho Education News shared these comments with Price and Lenney, co-sponsors on the resolution to repeal the Blane Amendment. Lenney, R-Nampa, acknowledged that the Supreme Court didn’t “directly declare” all no-aid provisions unconstitutional. 

But the “broader implications” of the court’s decisions suggest a “growing recognition of the potential unconstitutionality of such amendments when they lead to discrimination based on religious affiliation,” Lenney said by email. 

A brief legislative and legal history of the Blaine Amendment

Contrary to what its name suggests, the Blaine Amendment was not an add-on to the Idaho Constitution. It’s an original section of the document that was ratified in 1890. 

Similar provisions are found in 37 state constitutions, according to the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that advocates for private school vouchers. Idaho’s Blaine Amendment was adopted amid a 19th-century wave of efforts by Protestant-led legislatures to block Catholic schools from obtaining taxpayer funds. 

Blaine’s “anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant” roots are part of the reason it should be repealed, Lenney said. “It’s a symbol of a prejudiced past that doesn’t align with our current values.” (A conservative hardliner when it comes to modern-day immigration, Lenney last month called for blocking all immigrants from entering the U.S., including those who enter legally.)

Records of Idaho’s 1889 constitutional convention show the framers were motivated by anti-Catholic, and anti-Mormon, sentiments as well as broader concerns with maintaining clear boundaries between religion and the state. 

Debating against a constitutional provision that would have allowed public schools to teach the Bible, Boise County convention delegate George Ainslie said he believed in “keeping religion and state as far apart and separate as possible.”

Nearly 125 years later, the Blaine Amendment has recaptured attention, but debates around its effect on school vouchers are not new. From 1989 to 1997, three different Idaho attorneys general were asked to analyze whether the Blaine Amendment prohibited various school voucher proposals from the Legislature. None of the bills ultimately became law.

Jones’ office in 1989 issued guidance that said a voucher plan would likely be unconstitutional under the Blaine Amendment, if it included religious schools. Today, Jones is actively opposing voucher proposals and has threatened to sue if one is adopted.

“Public schools are there to give everybody an opportunity to get educated,” Jones told EdNews. “It’s worked pretty darn well for over a century, and this idea of bleeding the government trough, if you will, to pay for private schools is just baloney.”

Meanwhile, the Idaho Supreme Court has infrequently analyzed the Blaine Amendment. In one of the few cases that took an in-depth look at the provision, Idaho justices ruled that Blaine precluded a school district from offering bus services to private school students. 

In the 1971 opinion, justices wrote that they were “impressed” by the Blaine Amendment’s “restrictive language.” The framers of Idaho’s constitution “intended to more positively enunciate the separation between church and state than did the framers of the United States Constitution,” justices wrote.

What’s next? 

Ultimately, Idaho voters have the final word on whether to repeal the Blaine Amendment. Altering the constitution requires majority support from voters.

But first, the proposal has to clear the Legislature — with two-thirds support from both the House and Senate. An identical resolution last year never made it out of the Senate State Affairs Committee. 

At the same time, multiple bills that could test the Blaine Amendment’s limits are expected this legislative session. Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, earlier this month previewed their proposal to create tax credits that cover private school expenses.

The House State Affairs Committee last week voted to introduce Price and Lenney’s joint resolution, which means it will likely return to the committee for a public hearing in the coming weeks.

Little is touting a $47,477 minimum salary, but that’s well above the floor required under state law — and comes in above the minimum pay at more than half of Idaho’s districts and charters.

Idaho might rank in the top 15 nationally for average starting teacher pay — but that’s making a few assumptions along the way. 

Here’s how Little claims to be among the best.

Over the past year, he has frequently said that his administration lifted starting pay for public school teachers to top-10 national rankings. He repeated the vaunt during last week’s annual State of the State address. “We brought Idaho up from the bottom 10 nationally five years ago to now the top 10 for starting teacher pay,” the second-term Republican said.  

Madison Hardy, Little’s spokeswoman, said the claim is supported by rankings from 2020-21, the “then-available data” compiled by the National Education Association. And Hardy pointed to the governor’s “Idaho First” plan, which called for $47,477 starting teacher salaries. 

Lawmakers approved those raises last year, and it’s true that a $47,477 starting teacher salary would have tied Idaho with Connecticut for 10th nationally during the 2020-21 school year.

But that wasn’t Idaho’s starting pay in 2020-21, and it isn’t the current minimum salary in most Idaho public schools. 

Idaho actually ranked 29th for starting pay in 2020-21, then dropped to 30th in 2021-22, the most recent NEA data available. Idaho’s ranking is based on its statutory minimum teacher salary, the least a school district or charter school can pay a teacher, according to state law. 

Here’s a five-year breakdown of those minimums, including next year:  

• 2020-21: $39,842.
• 2021-22: $40,369.
• 2022-23: $40,742.
• 2023-24: $41,118.
• 2024-25: $41,500.

So, where did the $47,477 number come from? Last year, as part of his “Idaho First” plan, Little convinced lawmakers to approve an additional $145 million for teacher pay, which was advertised as a $6,359 raise for each teacher. 

Starting teacher pay in 2023-24 was $41,118. Add in the $6,359 raise and, voila: The starting salary reaches $47,477, which was a top 10 starting salary, at one point in time. 

Aside from the outdated rankings, and the assumption that no other state has increased minimum salaries since 2021, there’s another catch: Idaho teacher salaries are set at the local level. Besides the statutory minimum, districts decide how they allocate salary funds from the state. 

School districts did get an additional $145 million for teacher pay this school year, and salaries went up 9.1%, lifting the average teacher salary above $60,000 for the first time, as EdNews recently reported. 

But the state’s statutory minimum is still $41,118, and school districts could choose how they dished out the new state funding. Some districts, like Coeur d’Alene, raised starting pay to attract new teachers; others, like Kuna, hoping to retain veterans, gave raises to teachers with more experience. 

Not every teacher is currently making at least $47,477. In fact, just 72 school districts and charter schools met that threshold for their minimum salaries this school year, according to an analysis by EdNews. Minimum salaries for another 115 districts and charters are less than $47,477, and 50 districts and charters are paying the statutory minimum. A few dozen are paying more than $47,477. 

Overall, Idaho’s average starting salary in 2023-24 is $45,680. That would have ranked 13th in 2020-21 and 14th in 2021-22.

The bottom line: Idaho might rank in the top 15 nationally for average starting teacher pay — again, assuming other states haven’t surpassed it since 2022. That would be a significant jump from 41st in 2019, but it’s not top 10. 

In an emailed statement to EdNews, Hardy also touted Little’s other “historic investments” in schools, including increasing salaries for experienced teachers and staff, expanding health insurance benefits and increasing literacy intervention funding.

“Education remains Gov. Little’s top priority, and he will continue working with state and education leaders to support the needs of Idaho students and their teachers,” Hardy said.

Idaho EdNews data analyst Randy Schrader contributed to this report. 

After multiple tries with similar legislation in recent years, the new version seeks to appease concerns from Gov. Brad Little, who last year vetoed a bill that had stricter penalties.

The new bill allows the parent or guardian of a minor to file a request to relocate “harmful” material to an adults-only section in a public library or school library — including both public and private schools. If library officials don’t relocate the book, movie or other material within 30 days, they’d be liable for civil penalties.

The legislation calls for $250 in statutory damages. “I guarantee that won’t bankrupt any library here in Idaho,” bill sponsor Rep. Jaron Crane, told the House State Affairs Committee Wednesday. But the bill doesn’t limit liability to the statutory damages, meaning a plaintiff could seek more money from a public library or school district for other damages.

Content that’s “harmful to minors” is already defined in Idaho law. It’s material that’s “obscene,” appeals to the “prurient interest of minors” and is “patently offensive to prevailing standards” of what’s suitable for children. Content is also “harmful” if it’s “obscene” and “has the dominant effect of substantially arousing sexual desires” in minors.

“Obscene material,” as defined by Idaho law, is content that includes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement and sado-masochistic abuse. Any act of homosexuality falls under the definition of “sexual conduct.”

The new bill corrects the changes that Little “informed me about,” Crane, who also sponsored last year’s library legislation, told the House State Affairs Committee Wednesday.

“Our office understands Rep. Crane was referring to concerns outlined in Gov. Little’s veto letter,” Madison Hardy, Little’s spokeswoman, told Idaho Education News by email. “The Governor’s Office does not comment on proposed or pending legislation.”

Last year, lawmakers approved a bill that would have allowed the guardian of a child who obtained “harmful” material from a library to sue for $2,500 in statutory damages.

Little vetoed the bill over concerns that it would create a “bounty system” that would generate such financial risk to libraries they’d have to “close to minors altogether.”

A House vote to override the governor’s veto narrowly failed. Those decisions have since become fodder for partisan politics. The Idaho Republican Party and local committees have censured Little and lawmakers who opposed last year’s bill. The latter have also been targets of campaign advertising criticizing their votes.

Little touts school building plan; JFAC co-chairs raise economic warnings

Gov. Brad Little put in a short pitch for his big-ticket legislative priority Wednesday — and got some applause from a room full of business leaders.

Speaking at the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce’s annual legislative forum, Little touted his 10-year, $2 billion plan to replace and repair Idaho’s aging school buildings. Little unveiled the plan Monday, during his annual State of the State address.

Little also talked up another one of his education priorities: recruiting and retaining teachers. After years of boosting teacher pay, through a salary career ladder enacted in 2015, Idaho is no longer at risk of losing its “best and brightest teachers” to neighboring states.

In 2023, Idaho’s teacher retention rate was 87.9%, its lowest in at least four years.

While Little struck an optimistic tone, the co-chairs of the budget-writing Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee were more measured.

Sen. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, both said they were concerned about the state’s economic prognosis. Idaho has been riding a “COVID cash bubble,” buoyed by federal pandemic aid, and the bubble could pop or leak slowly, Horman said.

“I’m in the slow leak camp,” she said.

Horman voiced another concern: The sales tax has been Idaho’s most reliable tax, but the state has carved out pieces of the sales tax revenue stream for tax cuts and new, dedicated programs. That will increase Idaho’s risk in a recession.

And while Horman didn’t mention it, Little’s school facilities plan is built around another sales tax carveout, to the tune of $125 million a year.

Idaho EdNews reporter Kevin Richert contributed to this story.

Idaho in recent years has benefitted from big budget surpluses — typically around $1 billion or more — thanks to higher-than-expected tax revenue and an influx of federal stimulus during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“That’s no longer the case,” Alex Adams told the budget committee.

Adams dug into the details of Little’s “Idaho Works” spending plan, which he teased Monday during a multimedia State of the State address. While state revenue and expenses remain balanced, Little’s budget hedges against uncertain forecasts, Adams said. State revenues have normalized and tax relief programs, like House Bill 292 from last session, have trimmed the bygone surpluses.

Little’s budget limits general fund growth to 2.2% and bolsters rainy day funds to their statutory maximum. It also maintains ending balance cushions above $265 million through the next two fiscal years.

The budget maintains “fiscal prudence” while investing in matters “most pressing for Idahoans,” Little said Monday. That includes major investments in education, such as $75 million for Idaho Launch, $32 million for university facilities and $40 million for K-12 outcome-based funding. 

Most of the discussion during Tuesday’s budget presentation centered on Little’s blockbuster proposal to invest $200 million in school facilities each year for the next decade, and Adams shared new details. 

The first $125 million would come from sales tax revenue dedicated to a new School Modernization Trust Fund. The fund would be leveraged into a $1 billion bond that helps schools fund construction. 

The other $75 million would come from increasing school maintenance spending. State law requires school districts to spend 2% of their building replacement value on maintenance. Little’s plan would increase it to 4%, with state matching funds following.

The National Council on School Facilities recommends putting 7% of building replacement value toward maintenance each year, according to a 2022 report on school buildings from the Idaho Office of Performance Evaluations. That report influenced the governor’s plan, Adams said.

Lawmakers’ reactions to the $2 billion proposal have ranged from strongly supportive to frankly uneasy.

Rep. Rod Furniss, R-Rigby, said the plan would improve the success rate of school bond elections by lowering the threshold needed to fund construction locally. Furniss’ legislative district includes Salmon, a district that has tried and failed to pass a bond 12 times since 2006.

Sen. C. Scott Grow, who co-chairs JFAC, cautioned that future lawmakers would be obligated to pay off the $1 billion debt. “Those are some pretty big bonds,” said Grow, R-Eagle.

JFAC co-chair Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, questioned whether the state would be responsible for the interest rate on bonds. The state would cover the 3% to 4% interest rate, Adams said. 

The governor’s budget presentation kicks off a months-long process for lawmakers to scrutinize spending requests from state agencies and departments. One looming budget debate involves a familiar issue: the K-12 funding formula. 

During the pandemic, school support units — essentially the cost to operate a classroom — were funded based on school enrollment. But that temporary rule expired last year, and schools this year are again funded based on average daily attendance, which generates less money for most school districts. 

Attendance data from December showed a potential $162 million dip in school funding after the formula reversion, Idaho Education News previously reported. 

State superintendent Debbie Critchfield hopes to fill that gap with a supplemental appropriation this year. And Little’s budget supports that recommendation, Adams told EdNews Tuesday. But the governor’s request is based on forthcoming attendance data, so the exact amount won’t be clear until next month. 

Ultimately, JFAC will decide whether schools are compensated for the lost funds or whether the state sticks to what the attendance-based formula produced this year. On Tuesday, Horman signaled her feelings: “We must distribute school funding according to the law, and the law, right now, is average daily attendance,” she said.

Senior reporter and blogger Kevin Richert contributed to this story. 

Gov. Brad Little on Monday said he recently visited some of Idaho’s “crumbling, leaking, falling apart” public schools. One school had raw sewage seeping under the floor.

In his annual State of the State address, the second-term Republican asked lawmakers to invest $2 billion in school facilities over the next decade.

“The can we’re kicking is getting heavier and we’re running out of road,” Little said.

The largest ever state investment in school facilities, according to the governor’s office, is part of Little’s recommendations to spend $5.3 billion in state funds next fiscal year. He spoke to all 105 legislators, the state’s constitutional officers and justices of the Idaho Supreme Court.

The State of the State speech and Budget Highlights

The exact mechanism for funding school facilities will be ironed out over the next few months, Alex Adams, Little’s budget director, told reporters Monday. It could include a $1 billion state bond to help school districts with capital projects, along with increased maintenance funding.

“We’re not coming in and saying ‘This is the plan,'” Adams said. “We’re coming to the Legislature saying, ‘Let’s work together. Let’s figure out the best plan that works for every district in every corner of the state.'”

Lawmakers responded to Little’s proposal cautiously. Both House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, separately said, “The devil is in the details.” 

“It is a long-term investment in facilities, but it’s also some long-term debt,” Horman said. 

Moyle said he’s concerned about over-obligating the state’s sales tax revenue. Under the governor’s proposal, sales tax revenue would serve as a dedicated source of funds to guarantee the school facilities bond. 

Little told reporters Monday that he and his staff are “very cognizant” of over-committing sales tax revenue. And he dismissed concerns about taking on long-term debt. He compared it to buying a mortgage after securing a pay raise. 

Analysis: Seeking to build a K-12 legacy, Gov. Brad Little could face a Statehouse showdown.

“You got a guaranteed source of money coming in,” Little said. 

Education leaders praised Little’s speech. State Board of Education President Linda Clark said she “wholeheartedly support(s)” the plan to fix “dilapidated school facilities throughout Idaho.” 

State Superintendent Debbie Critchfield said the proposal shows how the state is taking a “comprehensive” approach to education — by addressing facilities on top of teacher salaries, health insurance and other school funding issues. 

“To me, this was this last, but big, chunk of the education pie that needed help,” Critchfield told EdNews following Little’s speech.

Overall, Little is asking for a $220 million — 8% — year-over-year increase to K-12 public schools. He’s also proposing a 4% increase for community colleges and 3% for colleges and universities. That includes a $32 million boost for colleges and universities to expand building capacity, with separate proposals for each school.

Little also endorsed Critchfield’s $40 million pitch for outcome-based K-12 funding. The funding would be tied to three goals: reading scores from kindergarten to fourth grade, math scores from fifth to ninth grade and high school performance tied to college or career readiness.

Critchfield said she expects the “modern” funding model will drive the classroom results that parents and policymakers expect.

“We’re incentivizing our districts to get that job done,” Critchfield said. 

Little is also pushing for a second $75 million tranche for Idaho Launch, Little’s controversial program that subsidizes workforce training for recent high school graduates. While many Republican lawmakers oppose the program, it’s been popular among high schoolers — more than 12,500 seniors have applied in less than three months, surpassing the amount of funds available.

“We don’t want our employers to import workers from other places when we can train our own kids right here at home,” Little said.

Democrats lauded the proposal, pledging to support fully funding the program. “It offers an unprecedented path to opportunity for Idaho’s youth,” Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, told reporters.

But many Republicans remain skeptical, after most GOP lawmakers voted against the program last year. “It’s another government handout,” Moyle said Monday. The speaker expressed support for an amendment to the program that would allow the state to claw back unused funds.

The governor’s office is also proposing a bill that will “cut red tape” for charter schools. Adams, who served as interim director of the Idaho Public Charter School Commission last year, unveiled a draft of the bill last month. 

The proposal would amend the initial charter term from five years to six years, and schools that meet their six-year performance criteria could be renewed for a 12-year term. It would grant three-year, “pilot” terms to innovative charter models. 

Amid an ongoing debate over whether to use state funds to help private school families pay for tuition, Little has touted Idaho’s existing array of “school choice.” 

A pair of Republicans on Friday unveiled a proposal to create private school tax credits. The bill, from Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, would allow private school families to claim $5,000 credits to cover tuition and other education expenses. 

Little hasn’t explicitly said he opposes such policies, but on Monday he repeated that he won’t support proposals that drain funds that could go to public schools — one of the primary criticisms lobbed at school voucher schemes. 

“I will continue to support a fair, responsible, transparent, and accountable approach to expanding school choice in Idaho — one that does not draw resources away from our public schools,” Little said.

This story will be updated throughout the day with reaction from other state leaders. Photos by EdNews’ photographers Brandon Schertler and Darren Svan.