That decision will affect state college and university wages but not K-12 school salaries, which are set locally. Higher education institutions also supplement salaries with tuition and fee revenue. 

JFAC lawmakers unanimously voted to give state workers 1% raises, across the board, along with 2% merit-based increases. Agency heads will have the discretion to distribute the merit-based funds. 

The state government is Idaho’s largest employer, with roughly 25,000 employees. The Thursday vote concurred with the Legislature’s Change in Employee Compensation Committee recommendation on pay increases. 

The budget committee earlier this month included 1% across-the-board raises in agencies’ “maintenance budgets” — benchmark appropriations that exclude agency requests for new spending. The additional 2% merit raises will be incorporated in final budgets, which will be set in the coming weeks.

Employee compensation was one of two statewide decisions that JFAC had yet to settle before it sets final budgets. Still-outstanding is a revenue projection, which will limit how much the committee spends. 

But the employee raise decision allows JFAC to move forward with final budget-setting, starting Friday. 

“We needed this action today before we can set any more budgets,” said JFAC Co-chair Sen. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle. 

IEA: Guns-in-schools bill is unsafe, unnecessary

A day after the House passed a bill that would allow more teachers to carry weapons in school, the state’s teachers’ union is stepping up its opposition to the idea.

In a letter to senators Thursday, the Idaho Education Association said House Bill 415 would allow untrained employees and volunteers to carry in school, which could put students at risk of an accidental shooting.

“Alternative solutions that do not involve arming school employees can be explored to address any concerns related to school safety,” said the letter, co-signed by IEA President Layne McInelly and its 27-member board of directors. “The status quo adequately meets the school district and community needs to keep students safe.”

Backed by the National Rifle Association, HB 415 would allow school employees to carry a weapon on campus, if they have a concealed weapons permit. The House passed the bill Wednesday on a 53-16 vote, sending it to the Senate.

Senate clears constitutional amendment limiting special sessions

When lawmakers in 2022 drafted a constitutional amendment giving themselves the right to convene a special session, they neglected a provision that limits how long the session could be. 

Since voters approved the amendment, there’s been no limit on how long the Legislature could meet for a special session. The Senate on Thursday advanced a new constitutional amendment correcting the oversight and limiting special sessions to 20 days. 

The amendment would ensure the Legislature remains part-time, a “blessing” and source of “pride,” according to Senate Majority Caucus Chair Mark Harris, R-Soda Springs. “We pass laws, we work here and we go home. And we have to live by the things that we do,” Harris told the Senate State Affairs Committee last week. 

Previously, only the governor could call a special session of the Legislature. But two years ago, voters narrowly approved an addition to the Idaho Constitution that gave lawmakers the right to convene themselves. 

Meanwhile, the Constitution continues to put a time limit on special sessions “convened…by the governor,” meaning sessions called by the Legislature are unrestrained. A handful of Republicans want to keep it that way. 

Ten GOP senators Thursday opposed the joint resolution to reinstate the 20-day limit. Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, said the Legislature — an “equal branch of government” — is more cost-effective than the bureaucratic arm of the state government. And the Legislature sometimes needs to exercise budgeting and lawmaking authority outside a regular session, like it did during the COVID-19 pandemic, Herndon said. 

“I don’t want to put a constraint on what that possibility might be for future situations,” he said. 

The constitutional amendment needs two-thirds support from the House and the Senate — it cleared the Senate with just one vote to spare. The joint resolution now heads to the House. 

A majority of Idaho voters also have to approve a constitutional amendment. Publicizing the amendment ahead of a vote will cost the state $200,000, according to a fiscal note for the joint resolution. 

We plan to write regularly on fundraising and spending, as all 105 legislative seats are on the ballot.

Look for lists and articles throughout the election, starting today, Feb. 1. Here’s a top 10 list: the incumbents and candidates who have raised the most money so far:

1. Ted Hill, R-Eagle: $110,310. There’s an asterisk here: Hill, a first-term lawmaker, has loaned an eye-popping $106,860 to his campaign. Hill sits on the House Education Committee, and he has sponsored a bill to allow teachers and school staff to carry guns on campus; the House passed this bill Wednesday.
2. Jim Woodward, Republican, Sagle: $85,568. A big-money rematch will unfold in Idaho’s northernmost legislative district. Woodward, a former state senator, has raised much of his money from mainstream GOP circles — such as Idaho Power, Spokane, Wash.-based Clearwater Paper, and State Board of Education member Shawn Keough, his predecessor in the Senate. Woodward also has loaned his campaign $20,000. (More on his opponent later in this piece.)
3. Steve Berch, D-Boise: $75,764. Berch, a three-term incumbent and House Education Committee member, represents West Boise’s battleground District 15. No opponent appears to be doing any fundraising so far.
4. Brett Skidmore, Republican, Ammon: $64,700. Skidmore is raising money from conservative circles — including Idaho Freedom Foundation vice chair Bryan Smith and former Lt. Gov. Janice McGeachin. Skidmore is taking on first-term Rep. Joshua Wheeler, R-Ammon, who has raised $27,279.
5. Brandon Shippy, Republican, New Plymouth: $57,574. Shippy’s donors include Freedom Foundation chair Brent Regan and Freedom Foundation board member Doyle Beck. Shippy is opposing Assistant Majority Leader Abby Lee, R-Fruitland, who has raised $10,150.
6. Josh Tanner, R-Eagle: $56,750. Tanner, a first-term lawmaker and Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee member, has loaned $50,000 to his campaign.
7. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle: $56,602. Herndon defeated Woodward in the 2022 GOP primary, and now sits on the Senate Education Committee and JFAC. His donor base includes several Freedom Foundation connections: Regan, Beck and Smith’s Idaho Falls law firm.
8. Ben Toews, R-Coeur d’Alene: $43,539. The Senate Education vice chair has loaned $40,000 to his campaign.
9. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle: $43,170. Grow is JFAC’s Senate co-chair. His donor base includes several industry PACs and Idaho Chooses Life.
10. Codi Galloway, Republican, Boise: $42,980. The former legislator has secured donations from at least four sitting lawmakers, and has loaned $20,000 to her campaign. She is positioning for a rematch in District 15. Democrat Rick Just, who narrowly defeated Galloway in 2022, has raised $40,155.

We haven’t received the records. On Friday, we received a second bill for the same documents — this time, in the amount of $326.15.

The U of I says both bills are legal. And the U of I doesn’t rule out billing us a third time.

At issue are records that we believe will tell an important part of the story about the U of I’s proposed University of Phoenix purchase — a controversial $685 million deal that could make or cost the U of I millions of dollars, and forge a partnership with a for-profit university with a troubled track record.

We have asked, twice, for invoices paid by the U of I and its affiliates, related to the Phoenix purchase. We submitted our original request on Dec. 22.

The U of I first billed the $88.65 to cover the cost of identifying and gathering the invoices. The U of I now says it needs an additional $326.15 to review and potentially redact the records.

In both cases, the U of I says the costs are estimates. If costs come in lower, the U of I promises to refund the difference. Or if the costs come in higher, the U of I says it will ask for more money.

In other words, the U of I isn’t ruling out charging us three times for the same set of public records. Not even when EdNews asked for assurance that the second bill would cover all costs.

“Simply put, this process, which is authorized under the law, ensures that taxpayers are not funding labor that goes solely to the benefit (of) individual requestors, such as you and your employer,” U of I senior associate general counsel said in a Wednesday email to EdNews.

State law allows agencies to bill for public records — for labor costs exceeding two hours of staff time. But the law doesn’t require agencies to seek payment, and many agencies don’t.

We also take issue with Klein’s insinuation that our records requests are self-serving. We have spent eight months pushing for details on the Phoenix purchase on behalf of our readership — and all Idahoans, who have a vested stake in this decision.

We are a public news source. And a well-read news source. Since last week, our stories on the trial that threatened to block the Phoenix purchase have been republished by the Idaho Statesman, the Idaho Press, the Lewiston Tribune, Boise State Public Radio, the Idaho Capital Sun and BoiseDev — and anyone else we might have missed along the way.

So, no, we’re not just doing this for kicks.

On Wednesday, we sent the U of I another $326.15. We’ll let you know what we get next — whether it’s a stack of public records, or another bill.

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.

The leadership shuffle in Idaho schools peaks each spring during prime hiring season, as trustees seek the most qualified candidates.  

EdNews tracks it all. Here are eight of the first openings. 

We’ll continue to update this story in the months to come. If you know of any openings or hires that we missed, let us know. 

Boise 

Leaving: Superintendent Coby Dennis will retire this summer. 

Taking over: Longtime Boise educator Lisa Roberts, becoming the district’s first female superintendent. 

Fremont County

Leaving: Dave Marotz, who was serving as interim superintendent.

Taking over: Brandon Farris, who is currently the principal at Wyoming’s Clear Creek Middle School, will start as superintendent this summer. Originally from Jerome, Farris told EastIdahoNews.com that becoming a superintendent “is a dream come true.”

“Dr. Farris brings a wealth of experience and dedication to education, and we look forward to the positive impact he will make on our school district,” a district announcement read. 

South Lemhi

Leaving: Superintendent Kevin Ramsey will stay with the district, but take on a different role this summer. 

Taking over: The position is currently advertised on edjobsidaho.com. 

Valley

Leaving: Former Superintendent Jennifer Jacobson resigned in November following a disagreement with the board of trustees. Eric Anderson is acting as interim superintendent. 

Taking over: The position is currently advertised on edjobsidaho.com. 

Jerome

Leaving: Superintendent Pat Charlton will retire this summer. 

“I’ve been at this business for a long time, this is my 45th year in education and my 39th year as an administrator, and so I decided it’s probably time to start enjoying my grandkids and my family, and as well as some of my passions like skiing and so forth,” Charlton told kmvt.com.

Taking over: The position has not been filled yet. 

New Plymouth

Leaving: Superintendent David Sotutu resigned at the end of the 2022-2023 school year, according to argusobserver.com.

In his resignation letter, which was obtained by the Argus Observer, Sotutu cited Idaho’s political climate as a reason for leaving: “While our school district and community have been very supportive of our students and educators, the state of Idaho’s hostility towards public education is suffocating,” he wrote. 

Taking over: Wil Overgaard is the district’s interim superintendent, who came out of retirement to help. It’s the second time he’s done so, having previously come out of retirement to serve as interim superintendent at Buhl School District. 

He said his returns to leadership speak to the lack of qualified superintendents in Idaho: “There’s a shortage, there’s no question.”

On top of that, New Plymouth School District’s opening came after prime superintendent hiring season, which was a factor.

The position is now open again, and is being advertised on the Idaho School Boards Association website. 

Shelley

Leaving: Chad Williams will become the Idaho High School Activities Association’s executive director this summer, replacing Ty Jones, who will retire. 

“I look forward to the journey ahead and the positive impact we can make together,” he said in a press release. “My primary focus is on fostering relationships across Idaho, with the ultimate goal of offering students enriching opportunities for learning, personal growth, and excellence through extracurricular activities.”

Taking over: The position is currently advertised on edjobsidaho.com. 

Fruitland

Leaving: Current Superintendent Lyle Bailey will retire this summer.

Taking over: The position is currently advertised on the Idaho School Boards Association website. 

Idaho EdNews data analyst Randy Schrader contributed to this report. 

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.

The State Board “reasonably believed” the University of Idaho was vying with other bidders for Phoenix, justifying its closed-door discussions, Ada County District Judge Jason Scott ruled late Tuesday afternoon.

Scott’s ruling clears one major obstacle blocking the U of I’s proposed Phoenix purchase — a complex and controversial deal university officials hope to close early this year. U of I officials have long said the purchase would provide the U of I with millions of dollars in revenues from Phoenix’s national operations, while downplaying the university’s financial risk, which could approach $10 million annually.

Meanwhile, Scott’s ruling also figures to reverberate in Republican Party circles. It represents a high-profile setback for Attorney General Raúl Labrador, who filed the lawsuit in June, and a victory for Gov. Brad Little and his appointed State Board members.

The case itself centered on an obscure section of state open meetings law.

Working in concert with a U of I lawyer and its in-house counsel, State Board members discussed the possible Phoenix purchase in closed executive sessions on March 22, April 25 and May 15 — before publicly supporting the deal in a May 18 public vote. The three closed meetings were based on a little-used clause that covers a competitive purchase that pits a state agency against public bidders in other states or nations.

As a result, the case focused on competition.

During a three-day trial before Scott last week, Labrador’s team argued that the State Board did not ask for specifics about competition — instead taking U of I President C. Scott Green’s word about the marketplace. And the market changed on April 24, Labrador’s team argued, when the University of Arkansas’ trustees voted to reject a Phoenix purchase.

The State Board’s legal team said competition was a recurring theme in the discussions, and board members were told Phoenix wanted to partner with a public buyer. They also argued that the board and Green had reason to believe Arkansas was still in the Phoenix sweepstakes.

In a 15-page ruling, Scott sided with the State Board members and board deputy attorney general Jenifer Marcus.

“(They) all continued to believe that the University of Arkansas was, along with others, still in competition with the University of Idaho to acquire the University of Phoenix,” Scott wrote. “Under the circumstances, the court finds that this belief was reasonable.”

Scott moved fairly quickly on his ruling — an apparent response to the push to close a purchase. The trial before Scott concluded Thursday, and Labrador’s team and the State Board’s attorneys had a Monday deadline to file their final legal arguments. Scott’s ruling came late Tuesday afternoon, minutes before the close of business.

The court decision is not the final step in the Phoenix purchase — and for the U of I and Phoenix, a nonbinding deadline looms in four months. The U of I’s accreditors still must sign off on the deal. Plus, a U of I-connected nonprofit must finance the purchase.

If a deal is not closed on May 31, the U of I or Phoenix could walk away from the table.

Reactions: ‘It is alarming to get sued by your own lawyer’

In a statement Wednesday morning, State Board President Linda Clark criticized Labrador.

“It is alarming to get sued by your own lawyer, Attorney General Labrador, for listening to the advice of his own staff,” Clark said. “The attorney general’s lawsuit has taken an extraordinary amount of time and resources over the last seven months. Regardless, we are pleased the court recognized the State Board followed the law. We are eager to put this unnecessary litigation behind us and will continue our pursuit of payment of legal fees by the attorney general’s office.”

Labrador, in turn, criticized the ruling, and didn’t rule out an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“The law requires much more of its officials than the District Court required, and it provides much greater protection to the public than the District Court gave,” he said. “The District Court’s ruling will lead to far less government transparency and accountability. That is bad for Idaho citizens, and it defies the entire purpose of the law. We are looking closely at all appellate options to ensure Idaho’s Open Meetings Law remains a bulwark for openness and government accountability.”

In a statement Wednesday morning, the U of I said the ruling moves the Phoenix purchase toward closure.

“We appreciate the court’s decision and are pleased that the open meeting/executive session practices of our Board of Regents were found to be sound. We look forward to completing our affiliation with the University of Phoenix in the coming months and bringing this unique opportunity to the citizens of Idaho. Higher education has never been more important than now as we work to meet the workforce needs of our state. This decision helps move us closer to the goal of further improving higher education accessibility in Idaho.”

More reading: Click here for our in-depth coverage of the proposed Phoenix purchase.     

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.

Marjorie Wilson, a licensed social worker, is serving for Rep. Sue Chew, D-Boise.

Don Coberly, the retired superintendent of the Boise School District, is serving for Rep. Colin Nash, D-Boise.

While Chew and Nash are away, Wilson and Coberly are able to attend committee hearings and debate and vote on bills for them.

All seats in the Idaho Legislature expire this year and are up for election, including the seats Chew and Nash hold.

Chew previously announced plans to retire from Idaho House

Wilson has served as substitute for Chew all session as Chew undergoes chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Being immunocompromised, Chew did not feel comfortable working in-person at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise, Chew told the Idaho Capital Sun through the Idaho House Democrats.

Chew previously announced she plans to retire from the Idaho Legislature at the end of her current term, which expires at the end of this year. Chew is the longest serving Democrat in the Idaho House and tied for the second-longest serving legislator overall. A licensed pharmacist, Chew is serving her ninth term in the Idaho Legislature.

Wilson said she has known Chew for a long time because Wilson’s mother, Janet Wilson, has been involved with the Democratic Party for many years.

Marjorie Wilson works in the field of substance abuse, earned a master’s degree in public health and has worked with Chew on legislation. Wilson said she offered to sub for Chew because Wilson was concerned about a number of bills affecting public health.

Since filling in this year, Wilson said she is especially concerned about House Bill 406, which would impose mandatory minimum prison sentences for people convicted of fentanyl trafficking. The Idaho House voted 55-13 on Monday to pass the bill, with Wilson and Coberly voting against it.

“We’ve seen mandatory minimums are not effective at curbing substance abuse and just incarcerate people instead of offering treatment,” Wilson said in a telephone interview. “We are not really approaching substance use from the right perspective. We’re approaching it from a fear-based perspective rather than an evidence-based intervention perspective.”

Wilson told the Sun she is planning to run for Chew’s seat in this year’s election and would like to focus on public health policy if elected.

Nash to focus on his role on the Boise City Council

Nash is an attorney who is in his second term in the Idaho House and was also elected to the Boise City Council in November. Nash had previously told the Sun that he would likely focus on his role on the Boise City Council if he was elected in November. Nash was previously appointed to fill a vacancy on the Boise City Council and then went on to win election on his own in November.

Nash told the Sun last week that he expects to resign near the end of the legislative session and asked Coberly to fill in for him in the meantime because of Coberly’s experience on education issues Coberly gained leading the Boise School District.
On Jan. 15, Nash designated Coberly to serve as his substitute until March 15. Coberly has previously served as a substitute legislator for Nash and former Rep. John McCrostie, D-Garden City.

In an interview at the Idaho State Capitol, Coberly said his experience with public education policy and participation in Boise School Board meetings helped prepare him to serve as a long-term sub. Still, Coberly said the job is harder than he expected and it is demanding to prepare to make a knowledgeable, informed vote on every bill that goes before legislators.

“I’ve spent a lot of time listening, and the biggest impression on me is how hard these jobs are,” Coberly said. The legislators that are here are devoting a ton of time to try to make fair decisions and represent their constituents, and you don’t really see that until you’re sitting in committee or sitting on the floor and see how agonizing some of those decisions are for legislators.”

Coberly said during his time as a substitute legislator he is focusing on written testimony from residents of District 16 in Ada County that Nash represents.

“That’s important to me to pay attention to what his constituents are saying,” Coberly said.

Coberly told the Sun he is not interested in running for Nash’s seat in this year’s election.

What does a substitute Idaho legislator do?

Substitute legislators in Idaho – like Wilson and Coberly – are administered the oath of office and sworn in. They serve on committees and get to vote on bills, budgets and rules just like any elected legislator.

Under Idaho law, “In the event that a legislator is temporarily unable to perform the duties of his office, the legislator may designate a qualified person to succeed to the power and duties, but not the office, of the legislator until the incumbent legislator is able to resume performance of his duties or a vacancy occurs in the office.”

If a legislator leaves office or dies during their term, a legislative district committee from the legislator’s same district and political party has 15 days under state law to submit a list of three nominees for the position to the governor, who then has 15 days to appoint one of the nominees to fill the vacancy in the Idaho Legislature.

Idaho Capital Sun is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Idaho Capital Sun maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Christina Lords for questions: info@idahocapitalsun.com. Follow Idaho Capital Sun on Facebook and Twitter.

“Be prepared for a May 21 election,” Nick Miller, a lawyer and partner at Hawley Troxell, advised trustees in a work session presentation last week. 

But a decision on whether to run a ballot measure, or what kind (a bond or plant facilities levy), will likely have to wait until March, due to “Legislative Actions,” Miller advised. 

The 2024 Legislature is in session for about two more months. A key issue: whether Gov. Brad Little’s proposal to invest $2 billion in school facilities over the next decade has enough support from lawmakers, and if so, at what cost. 

According to Miller’s presentation, House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, might attach the condition that the August school election be killed. That comes after the March school election was slashed last session, a provision included in House Bill 292, which provided schools with $100 million to apply to bonds or levies and lower tax impacts. 

There’s also the possibility — according to Miller — that the state’s bond subsidy (financial assistance that offsets bonds’ costs for qualifying districts) could “transfer over” to the governor’s funding proposal, reducing its impact. 

Another complication: how to communicate with taxpayers about how HB 292 impacts them.

The Pocatello/Chubbuck School District recently opted to use the new law as an opportunity to present its proposed $45 million bond, for improvements at two high schools, as having a “net zero impact.” But a local government watchdog group criticized that messaging as misleading, arguing that it didn’t make clear that taxpayers would save money if the bond measure failed. 

Hawley Troxell counseled Pocatello/Chubbuck on that failed bond attempt, and Miller acknowledged in his presentation that the messaging “arguably backfired.” 

“Better view now is to not refer to HB 292 funds on the Ballot at all,” Miller’s presentation said. “Net … tax burden increases with a bond so be up front and say so.”

Miller advised trustees to keep ballot language to the required minimum. 

Another wrinkle trustees are facing: their two-year, $13.6 million supplemental levy expires in summer 2025. Miller advised they ask for another levy at the May 2025 election. 

Trustees will continue the discussion over how to move forward at the next work session, though it’s unclear when that will take place. 

EdNews reached out to Idaho Falls Board Chair Hillary Radcliffe Tuesday morning for comment on possible next steps, but did not immediately hear back. We will update this story if more information becomes available.

Rep. Ted Hill’s bill was scheduled for a vote Tuesday, but members voted to keep it on the calendar, for now. Hill told Idaho Education News that he’s hoping to bolster support for the bill and address concerns from the Senate, to avoid amendments once it crosses the rotunda. 

“We are trying to get the buy-in and we’ve got to give it some time,” said Hill, R-Eagle. “But we haven’t changed the bill, or anything, yet.”

The House State Affairs Committee last week voted along party lines to give House Bill 415 the go-ahead. That was after a tense public hearing in which associations representing school boards and administrators as well as the statewide teachers’ union expressed fervent opposition. 

The bill would give school employees the right to carry guns on public school campuses and grant them legal immunity if they engage in a gunfight. An employee would need an enhanced concealed carry permit, but wouldn’t need permission from school administrators or trustees, to carry on campus.  

The legislation is designed to give teachers a fighting chance in a school shooting in the minutes before law enforcement arrives, Hill argues. “The police never stop these things, almost never,” he told EdNews. “We’re trying to close this gap.” 

But law enforcement groups have said they’re concerned that the eight-hour training required for an enhanced concealed carry permit is inadequate and that the bill is taking the wrong approach to addressing school shootings. 

The Idaho Association of School Resource Officers announced Monday that it’s opposed to the current proposal, and lawmakers should instead focus on preventing school shootings. Strategies should include mandating behavioral threat assessments, establishing research-based emergency protocols and investing in school resource officers, Morgan Ballis, president of the association, wrote in a column.

“Rep. Hill, and those who support this legislation, have demonstrated their resolve to protect our students and educators,” Ballis wrote. “However, these efforts are focused in the wrong areas.”

Blaine repeal on hold, at least for the time being

A proposal to overturn the controversial “Blaine Amendment” is also on hold, at least for the time being.

The House State Affairs Committee took no action on House Joint Resolution 1, an attempt to strike Idaho’s constitutional ban on using public dollars to support religious enterprises, including schools.

The reasons to hold the amendment were not immediately clear. Rep. Joe Palmer, R-Meridian, a supporter of the repeal, asked to delay a vote so he could get answers to some technical questions. Palmer did not elaborate. His motion to delay the vote passed unanimously.

The vote came after a debate that fell along familiar ideological lines.

Rep. Elaine Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, repeatedly said that her proposal was simply designed to give Idahoans a say on the Blaine Amendment. (Constitutional amendments must pass both houses by two-thirds supermajorities, and majority support from voters.) But she also said the amendments — in place in about three dozen states, including Idaho — reflect a nationwide political campaign engineered by former U.S. congressman James Blaine, who also sought similar language in the U.S. Constitution.

“Blaine had a hatred for Catholic Irish immigrants and expressed his bigotry with this  amendment,” Price said.

Supporting the repeal, Coeur d’Alene attorney Katherine Hartley argued against a strict separation between church and state. This separation, embodied in the Blaine amendment, disfavors religion. “This is not neutral. This is hostile toward religion of all kinds.”

Opponents pushed back against the argument that the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively overturned the Blaine Amendment. A recent Supreme Court ruling said a state cannot discriminate against funding religious schools — but only if a state decides to make public dollars available to private schools.

The amendment guarantees that public dollars stay in public schools, said Nancy Gregory, a Boise school trustee and Idaho School Boards Association past president. Repealing the amendment would provide an “easy path” to pass a tax voucher or education savings account plan, she said.

And while Palmer didn’t spell out his questions, Rep. John Gannon rattled off several concerns.

Gannon, D-Boise, wanted a better sense of the cost of repeal, if it paves the way for a private school funding law. He also asked how the state would define religions that are eligible for state support — and a list of religious enterprises that could receive state funding, beyond parochial schools.

Tuition tax credit bill surfaces

A much-anticipated bill to subsidize private school tuition made its first appearance Tuesday. 

The House Revenue and Taxation Committee introduced the bill to create a $50 million program for private school tax credits and low-income grants. 

Co-sponsors Sen. Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, and Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, previewed the proposal in a news conference earlier this month. Tuesday’s print hearing was the first hurdle for the bill, setting the stage for a public hearing likely to draw fireworks. 

The bill would allow private school families of any income to claim $5,000 tax credits for academic expenses. That could include tuition, fees, transportation, tutoring, test-taking and exam preparation, among other things. Families with a learning-disabled student could claim an additional $2,500. 

Another $10 million would be set aside for a “kickstart” program benefitting low-income students. Rather than claiming private school expenses on their taxes, families who qualify for the federal earned income tax credit could collect up to $5,000 in grants for one year. After a year, those families would be rolled into the tax credit program. 

Altogether, the tax credits and grants — distributed on a first-come, first-served basis — would be capped at $50 million annually. That could go up in future years if there’s high demand. 

Tuesday’s meeting was a taste of the debate to come. Den Hartog tried to head off the primary criticism of proposals to subsidize private education — that they would drain public school funds. 

“This does not take funds from the public schools budget,” said Den Hartog, who said the K-12 budget would be dealt with separately.

After Rep. Kenny Wroten, R-Nampa, asked whether the bill would create a “new source of revenue,” Den Hartog acknowledged that the tax credits could decrease state revenue. 

After the hearing, House and Senate Democrats said the state’s budget is “fungible” and “any amount of funds” allocated to the proposed program would deplete money available for public schools. 

Idaho has roughly 15,000 private school students. The Mountain States Policy Center, a think tank that has supported similar proposals in the past, estimates the $50 million spending cap would limit the program to roughly 8,000 students. 

The committee voted 13-3 to introduce the bill. Wroten opposed it, along with Rep. Rick Cheatum, R-Pocatello, and House Assistant Minority Leader Lauren Necochea, D-Boise.

Charter school overhaul clears House

Atop a wave of mostly silent consent, a bill to overhaul Idaho’s charter school regulations sailed through the House Tuesday.

While three Democrats opposed the bill, there was no debate against, and very little argument for, the “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act.” The bill is a sweeping revision of regulations governing charter school applications, operations and reauthorizations, designed to reward high-performing charters with less “red tape” and provide more support to struggling charters. 

“We’ve learned a lot in the last 26 years of charter schools,” said Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, who’s sponsoring the bill co-authored by the governor’s office. “Instead of just fixing a little piece here and there, we decided to do a total rewrite.” 

To read more about what the overhaul would entail, click here.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

New bill targets access to ‘harmful’ online materials

A House committee introduced another bill designed to restrict access to “harmful” online materials.

Dubbed the “Online Child Safety Act,” the new bill would require internet content providers to verify the age of users who view materials deemed harmful to minors. If providers don’t take “reasonable steps” to verify a user’s age, parents would be allowed to seek civil damages.

“We are just trying to provide content creators with a way to self-regulate,” said Rep. Elaine Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

The House State Affairs Committee voted to introduce the bill Tuesday, a unanimous vote that could pave the way to a full hearing at a later date.

While the House bill targets content providers, a Senate bill takes a decidedly different approach to controlling access to harmful materials. Sen. Kevin Cook, R-Idaho Falls, has proposed a bill to require manufacturers to install filters on devices children use. The Senate State Affairs Committee introduced the latest version of Cook’s bill Monday.

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.

It was an “organic protest” that was not organized by the Jerome Education Association, according to Co-President Darren Olsen. But he said some members did participate, and the walkout was “understandable.”

“(It) reflects deep frustration for administration’s lack of consideration for educators’ expert professional perspective for the education offered to Jerome students and the impact that those decisions have on educators themselves,” Olsen wrote in a prepared statement.

Pat Charlton, Jerome’s superintendent, said that while the absences were primarily about the five-day week decision, there were other factors; teachers also wanted to express their stress and dissatisfaction over increasing class sizes, more student misbehavior than ever before, and growing responsibilities. 

Charlton said he had sensed teachers’ stress, and thought a move to a four-day week might be one possible way to improve morale.

Jerome school leaders spent months exploring the idea, including via a stakeholder committee, a survey, and a town hall meeting. 

Most of the feedback was positive, so ahead of a Jan. 23 school board meeting, Charlton planned to recommend that trustees adopt a four-day week. But as the meeting neared, opposition to the change suddenly intensified.

“I did not anticipate the amount of pushback that came at the end,” Charlton said.

Community members, parents, and some teachers voiced concerns about the potential impacts of a four-day week on the most vulnerable populations, including special education students and those from low-income families. It could increase food insecurity for the latter, for example, and would put financial pressure on working parents to pay for daycare. 

A summary of a stakeholder meeting held about a week before the board decision listed more four-day week cons than pros.

“So as all that came just before the board meeting, I determined it was really in the best interest of the school board and the district not to go away from the five-day schedule at this time,” Charlton said. “The board was in a no-win situation; either way they were going to upset somebody.”

He advised trustees to vote against the four-day week — and they did, unanimously. 

Kailan Pope, the parent of a Jerome student, was frustrated with that choice: “Nothing was said that would indicate why they changed so suddenly,” she said. “Leaves a lot of questions for everyone.”

When told about Charlton’s concerns, she said there were options for vulnerable student populations, such as going to the local Boys & Girls Club on Fridays. 

Pope is in favor of a four-day week because it would allow for “more quality family time together” and “opportunities to learn in ways that the school cannot provide.”

As of Monday afternoon, school was planned to be back in session Tuesday. Pope said she hopes the walkout will “keep the discussion going.”

Olsen said the local teachers’ union is “eager to help bridge the gap between educators and the district to ensure that every student in Jerome receives the education they deserve.”

In response to the protest, Charlton plans to host listening sessions to gather feedback and then determine next steps. He added that board members “sincerely want to take steps to improve the district and do whatever it takes to reduce the level of stress that our teachers have right now.”

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.

Before starting kindergarten, Idaho school children must get vaccines for measles, chickenpox, polio and other diseases. But state law has broad exemptions to the mandate — parents can refuse vaccination for any reason. 

The law says a parent can exempt their child from a vaccine with a doctor’s note explaining health risks. Vaccinations also can be refused “on religious or other grounds.” School districts are required to disclose these exemptions when communicating with parents about immunization.

The new bill would take it a step further and require that school districts “describe that immunizations are not mandatory.” 

“I’m very pro-vaccine,” said Rep. Dori Healey, R-Boise, who’s sponsoring the bill. But Healey said many parents don’t know immunization requirements aren’t mandatory when school districts send out regular vaccination reminders.

The House Health and Welfare Committee voted Monday to introduce the bill, which means it could have a public hearing in the coming days or weeks. 

The bill comes as Idaho’s childhood immunization rates have steadily declined in recent years — and the state last year experienced a rare outbreak of measles, a disease once considered eradicated from the U.S. thanks to widespread vaccination. 

Last school year, more than 10,000 school-age children weren’t fully vaccinated, Idaho Education News previously reported. The kindergarten immunization rate was nearly 78%, down about 8% from pre-pandemic levels, and more than 12% of kindergarteners were in school with an immunization exemption. 

New smartphone filter bill introduced

Idaho senators Monday introduced a new version of a bill to require smartphone manufacturers to create pornography filters on smartphones and tablets used by children. 

The bill has one major change since it was first introduced two weeks ago: There’s no longer a civil cause of action. That provision would have made a company liable for civil lawsuits if they failed to enable a filter blocking children from accessing “obscene material” on one of their devices. 

“It was causing noise and I just went back and focused on … the real problem that I’m trying to fix here,” bill sponsor Sen. Kevin Cook said Monday. “The real problem is giving parents the ability to keep their children from pornography.” 

The Idaho attorney general’s office still could seek penalties for failing to comply with the proposed law. The legislation calls for up to $50,000 in fines. 

Cook, R-Idaho Falls, said the requirements only would apply to device manufacturers and not retailers or internet providers. Manufacturers would have to enable a filter that blocks “obscene material” — defined in state law as a sexual act that “appeals to the prurient interest” — on a smartphone or tablet used by a minor. Parents or guardians could deactivate the filter.  

It’s the second consecutive legislative session that Cook has pushed for a pornography filter on smartphones. A similar bill last year narrowly failed to pass the Senate amid concerns that it was overreaching into private industry affairs. 

That resistance appears to be ongoing. On Monday, Senate President Pro Tem Chuck Winder bemoaned opposition to the bill and compared it to legislation seeking to restrict library material, which is widely supported by Statehouse Republicans. 

“There’s more access to pornography through the cell phone than there is through a library, so I don’t understand why we have opposing sides on this,” said Winder, R-Boise.

‘When ISU wins, the state of Idaho wins:’ new president meets lawmakers

On his first day on the job, Idaho State University President Robert Wagner was in the Statehouse.

“When ISU wins, the state of Idaho wins,” Wagner said during brief introductory remarks before the House Education Committee Monday morning.

Wagner pledged to focus on “affordability and relevance” and work to improve student access.

Wagner also drew from his own background as a nontraditional student. When he completed his bachelor’s degree at Brigham Young University, Wagner and his wife had already had their first child. When he received his master’s degree at the University of Utah, he was a father of four. When he completed his doctorate from the State University of New York at Albany, he was a father of five, studying more than 2,000 miles from home.

Wagner was named Idaho State’s 14^th president in December. Previously, Wagner had worked 16 years at nearby Utah State University, most recently as executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Wagner was scheduled to speak to the Senate Education Committee Monday afternoon. Wagner is also scheduled to return to the Statehouse in February for more formal comments.

Trustee vacancy bill heads to the Senate floor

With little discussion, the Senate Education Committee approved a bill designed to keep school boards running in the event of vacancies.

Senate Bill 1239 would redefine quorum as the number of school trustees in office, not the number of school board seats.

The change would only affect a five-member board that is down two members. Currently, all three remaining trustees must attend a meeting in order for the board to conduct business. Under SB 1239, such a board could hold a meeting with only two trustees in attendance.

Sponsoring Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, called the bill a “scalpel” approach to address a problem that occurred in his legislative district. The West Bonner School District struggled to cobble together a working quorum after two trustees were recalled in August.

The Idaho School Boards Association is neutral on the bill, executive director Misty Swanson said Monday.

Senate Education voted unanimously to send SB 1239 to the floor, with a recommendation that it pass. A Senate vote could come later this week.

Herndon’s bill is one of two proposals to come out of the West Bonner brouhaha. Rep. Mark Sauter, R-Sandpoint, has introduced a bill that would block recalled trustees from participating in board meetings.

About open meetings — which are oxygen for reporters, and an obligation for elected and appointed officials.

And that’s what unfolded last week, as Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s team squared off with the State Board of Education’s hired lawyers. A discussion about letting the public in on the public’s business — in this case, the University of Idaho’s $685 million plan to buy the University of Phoenix — is inherently a good and important thing.

Good and important, as far as that goes. The civil trial before District Judge Jason Scott was restricted to an open meetings question: Did the State Board break Idaho law when it went behind closed doors to talk about the proposed Phoenix purchase? The trial left no time for the big picture question — why does the U of I and the State Board want to do business with Phoenix, a for-profit online school with huge enrollment of 85,000 and a half century track record of trouble? The U of I and the State Board have never bothered with a public discussion, doing most of its talking in those legal or illegal closed meetings.

Reasonably enough, Scott tried to keep the lawyers on task last week, and focused on the open meetings dispute. On at least two occasions, Scott cut off deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard as he attempted to bring up Phoenix’s $191 million Federal Trade Commission fine — and the false advertising complaints that went with it. Scott also made it clear that he wasn’t going to let State Board attorney Trudy Hanson Fouser introduce evidence about Phoenix’s profits.

In other words, the lawyers had little chance to paint Phoenix as a millstone or a moneymaker.

The rationale for the Phoenix purchase came up, but only in boilerplate terms Idahoans have heard before.

State Board President Linda Clark and board member Bill Gilbert talked about the board’s longstanding goal of breaking down geographic barriers, and pushing education programs into the state’s most remote corners.

U of I President C. Scott Green explained why traditional and for-profit schools make a good match. A declining birth rate means fewer 18- to 22-year-olds will be heading to college, creating a demographic ”cliff” that will put some schools out of business. The for-profits are seeking an “exit strategy,” and a way to get out from under some government regulations.

“The Department of Education truly has been tough on that market,” he said.

This marriage of convenience gets at a central question in the lawsuit: competition.

The State Board based its series of closed meetings on a seldom-used piece of state law. It allows closed-door discussions if an Idaho agency is in competition with other public entities in another state, or abroad. It doesn’t come up much because, after all, it isn’t business as usual for a state university to spend almost $700 million swallowing up another university.

So last week, we did learn more about competition, usually in shadowy terms. Green said he didn’t press Phoenix’s brokers for names they weren’t likely to divulge. In turn, board members didn’t press Green for details. One name did come up, almost by happenstance: An internal March 16 email from Greg Finkelstein of Tyton Partners, Phoenix’s New York-based brokers, identified three suitors: the U of I; the University of Arkansas (a name that has been out in the public domain for a year); and heretofore unknown UMass Global, a nonprofit affiliated with the University of Massachusetts.

Never heard of UMass Global?  Cut yourself some slack. Last week, none of the board members said they’d heard of UMass Global either.

Which makes UMass Global a two-edged sword in the open meetings issue at play. Finkelstein’s internal email describes Phoenix as a hot commodity, supporting Fouser’s argument about competition. But Woodard clearly tried to score points off the fact that State Board members knew nothing about UMass Global, or any other possible competitor other than Arkansas. Instead, he contended, the board blindly went behind closed doors because they were told to, and because they were told the U of I was in a competitive bidding process.

So here’s where we get to a fundamental difference of opinion — and it has really important implications under Idaho’s open meeting law. What role should elected or appointed officials play, before they meet behind closed doors? Woodard and Fouser could hardly see it more differently.

When Woodard argued that the State Board didn’t do its own independent research into competition for Phoenix, the subtext was clear: It’s incumbent upon government officials to ask questions before simply accepting the rationale for closed-door meetings. Which makes sense, at some level, since the elected or appointed officials could be fined for breaking the law.

Fouser, instead, argued for the process. In this case, longtime U of I attorney Kent Nelson requested the executive session. He worked with Jenifer Marcus, the State Board’s in-house deputy attorney general, with nearly a dozen years’ experience on the job; and State Board executive director Matt Freeman, who has been on the job 8 ½ years. Fouser’s case is built around the idea that volunteer State Board members can, and should, be able to count on their experienced support staff.

As a statewide body with far-reaching policymaking authority, of course the State Board is going to have a robust support network. But hundreds of smaller government bodies — including most of Idaho’s 115 school districts — have limited staff. Rural trustees, and small-town officials across the state, have a personal stake in how judge Scott interprets their responsibilities under the open meeting law.

A robust public debate over this law is healthy and useful. It’s too bad Idahoans have never been afforded the same opportunity to debate the Phoenix purchase.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday. Due to the timeliness of the topic, this analysis was published on Monday, Jan. 29.

More reading: Click here for our in-depth coverage of the proposed University of Phoenix purchase.

Because of his popularity, the 33-year teaching veteran and native Mandarin speaker was recently named the 2024 Idaho Language Teacher of the Year.

Not only have students taken his class, but his International Baccalaureate (IB) students consistently score a standard deviation above the world average on their proficiency exam.

In honor of his exemplary teaching, representatives from the Idaho Association of Teachers of Language and Culture (IATLC) surprised Li with the award on Monday, where school district representatives, fellow teachers and students gathered to show support.

“I didn’t see this coming!” Li exclaimed, shocked. “When I saw I was a finalist I thought, ‘well, there’s no way it will be me’ because there were so many amazing teachers.”

IATLC narrowed their selection down to four finalists that met their requirements of three years of consistent service within the organization. They then reached out for comments of support for each finalist. According to IATLC representative Danyelle Davis, of the 68 individual comments received, 45 were in support of Li.

In a speech to those gathered, Li thanked his fellow teachers and administrators who “provided rich soil” for him.

He also thanked his students, comparing himself to a small bird “hopping in a circle on the ground year after year” and his students to an eagle, inviting the bird to fly and see the view. “I wanted to learn more, and my students helped me do that,” he explained.

One of Li’s 100 current students is freshman Daisy Magnuson, who had him in kindergarten when he taught part-time at what was then called Gateway Elementary.

Of Li, Daisy said, “he has a good balance of learning Mandarin, but also learning the culture and doing fun things. It’s a hard class…but Mr. Li makes it fun… he supports us.” Just as her older brother did, she plans to take four years of Mandarin.

Li’s classroom is colorful, with bright posters all over the walls, and flashcards hanging down from the ceiling. In the middle of the room hangs a large Chinese lantern which Li says is part of how he exposes students to Chinese culture. A cart in the back houses beautiful tea cups and traditional Chinese tea.“[The students] don’t see a lot of Chinese people in the valley in Idaho.” Li explained. “So I have to provide those [opportunities] for my students.”

After 18 years of teaching English in China, Li moved to the United States with his wife (an Idaho native). He has taught for 15 years in America, and is the only remaining original staff member at Renaissance High.

When Li first arrived in America, he was discouraged by his difficulty understanding the language he had studied and taught for years in China. He “felt inadequate.”  “After all those years of teaching English…I doubted myself. I said, ‘what did I do for those past 30 years?’”

His experience not only helps him empathize with his students, but also drives him to create a classroom where students really learn and understand the language.

“As a teacher I want to transform that scary, daunting language into something that is approachable.” Li explained he does this through singing, dancing, and connecting with Chinese culture.

During our interview Li bounced up to the whiteboard, giving us a quick lesson on how to write the character “love.” He explained that when he learned the Chinese characters growing up, his parents said, “write it 500 times and you’ll remember.” But “in America, students don’t have time to write them 500 times,” he said, laughing. “So I created a way to visualize Chinese characters.”

Li shares his innovative teaching methods through BSU’s Pathways project, which makes public education resources accessible for other foreign language teachers and community members. He also recently received a grant from the West Ada Education Foundation he will use towards a Mandarin computer program for his students.

The next step for Li is to create an intense portfolio with videos of his instruction and recommendations. He will be sponsored by IATLC and considered for the award of 2024 Pacific Northwest Language Teacher of the Year at their annual conference in March.

Not as many Idaho students are graduating on time as state education leaders would like, but some schools have met and exceeded those high hopes, and others are closing in. 

EdNews combed recently-released data from the Idaho Department of Education to identify the schools that are at the top, exceeding the statewide average (81% in 2023), and sometimes, even the lofty state goal (95%). 

Read on to find out which schools have the greatest percentage of students earning a high school diploma on time. 

A few things to keep in mind before you dig into the data:

• Senior class size vs. four-year cohort size: We’ve included the four-year cohort size for each school. A cohort is different than the senior class size, partly because it includes students who drop out between freshman and senior year.
  • Here’s how the IDE defines a cohort: “Students who are entering grade 9 for the first time form a cohort that is subsequently ‘adjusted’ by adding any students who transfer into the school during the next four years and subtracting any students who transfer out, immigrate to another country, or pass away during that same time period.”
• Our categories: There are myriad possible ways to consider and arrange data. We’ve done so in the way we thought fairest, trying to compare the most similar schools, according to size and type. 
• An imperfect comparison: It’s still an imperfect comparison; it doesn’t account for the many other differences between schools, such as location, student demographics, the school’s level of funding, and more. It’s just intended to be a glimpse into the data. 
• Find your school or district here: You can also search the entire dataset (hit “control F” on the document and a search bar will appear) to find your school if it’s not listed here, or use it to compile the data in different ways. 

Here are the standouts, as sorted by:

• Small traditional schools; large traditional schools; small nontraditional schools; and large nontraditional schools. 

Top small traditional schools (cohorts fewer than 100)

Top large traditional schools (cohorts of 100 or more)

Top small nontraditional (charter, magnet, online, alternative) schools (cohorts fewer than 40)

Top large nontraditional (charter, magnet, online, alternative) schools (cohorts of 40 or more)

Data analyst Randy Schrader contributed to this report. 

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.

But the decision won’t come until next week at the earliest.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s legal team and the State Board of Education’s hired attorneys wrapped up three days in court Thursday afternoon — arguing an open meetings case that revisits the U of I’s behind-the-scenes courtship of Phoenix.

On May 18, the State Board approved the U of I’s $685 million plan to acquire Phoenix, a huge but beleaguered for-profit online university serving some 85,000 students. The State Board discussed the deal in a series of three closed-door meetings last spring. Labrador’s contends those meetings were illegal; in his lawsuit, he is asking Ada County District Judge Jason Scott to void the State Board’s May 18 vote.

Thursday afternoon’s closing arguments centered on the lawsuit’s focal point: competition. That’s because the State Board’s closed meetings were based on an obscure and seldom-used section of state law, covering transactions that puts an Idaho agency “in competition with governing bodies in other states or nations.” 

As he did throughout the three-day trial, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard said the State Board did not ask enough questions about competition — relying instead on assurances from U of I President C. Scott Green, who in turn received much of his information from Tyton Partners, a brokerage working on Phoenix’s behalf.

Woodard’s closing arguments honed in on what he called “a three-week gap” in due diligence. On April 24, the University of Arkansas’ board of trustees rejected a Phoenix purchase in a public vote. But board members didn’t press Green for information, instead taking his word that Arkansas was still in the running. Board members also didn’t ask staff to look into the marketplace for Phoenix. Then they held another closed meeting on May 15, partly on the assumption that Arkansas was still a bidder.

“That type of blind vote is a gross violation of the law,” Woodard said.

Trudy Hanson Fouser, one of the State Board’s attorneys, said the board followed a proven process, counting on staff and in-house attorneys to vet open meetings issues. And board members had every reason to believe Phoenix was in high demand — based in part on their professional backgrounds ranging from education to business.

“They are applying their life experiences to what they are hearing,” she said.

Attorneys have until Monday afternoon to file final written arguments, and make their final appeal to Scott, the presiding judge in the case. Scott pledged to issue his ruling as soon as possible, but he didn’t commit to a date.

For the U of I — and Phoenix — time is of the essence. The lawsuit stands as one of the biggest obstacles to the sale.

The U of I’s accreditors still must approve the purchase. A nonprofit affiliated with the U of I must secure financing, and the ongoing legal battle has effectively put bonding on hold.

If the deal isn’t closed by May 31, either side can walk away.

The State Board’s lawyer speaks

After Labrador’s team called a dozen witnesses, including all eight State Board members, the State Board’s team called its lone witness Thursday morning.

That was Jenifer Marcus, the deputy attorney general who has been assigned to the State Board for nearly 12 years.

Marcus’ testimony ran for more than an hour, and focused largely on process and procedure. The requests for the closed meetings came from U of I legal counsel Kent Nelson, a member of the university team studying the Phoenix purchase. In a March phone call, Nelson told Marcus the U of I was vying with other bidders for Phoenix.

Marcus said she did not try to look into the competition issue on her own, but put the closed meetings on board agendas based on what she had heard from Nelson. And based on what she heard herself, as she listened in on the executive sessions, she said it was clear that there were multiple bidders for Phoenix.

“It seemed unlikely to me that the University of Idaho would prevail,” she said, “because it was such a competitive environment.”

Marcus also discussed her relationship with the board. She says it’s her job, as staff attorney, to examine open meetings issues and other legal matters, so volunteer board members don’t have to. “If they see a scheduled executive session, they know it’s been properly vetted.”

Cross-examination illustrated the unusual politics at the heat of the lawsuit, as one deputy attorney general grilled another deputy attorney general. In a tense exchange, Woodard repeatedly and pointedly asked Marcus if she could have counseled board members about competition for Phoenix. Marcus finally said she could have.

The repeated questioning drew fire from Fouser, who called the questioning “rude.”

Scott seemed to agree.

“Let’s not snipe,” he said.

Notes from a board member

Cindy Siddoway was the eighth and final State Board member called to testify in the trial. Her Thursday morning testimony covered Woodard’s standard script of questions — with a plot twist.

The issue: handwritten notes Siddoway took during the March 22 State Board executive session. The notes, jotted on the upper left-hand corner of the meeting agenda, focus on competition. On one line, Siddoway wrote “U. of Arkansas.” Below that, she wrote, “2 others interested,” referring to other suitors. A third line mentioned land-grant institutions.

Siddoway said the notes helped her recall details from that first closed-door meeting, which she attended via Zoom. The board heard about three potential competitors, Arkansas and the unidentified bidders, she testified Thursday morning. And someone in the meeting suggested Phoenix wanted to partner with a land-grant institution such as U of I, although Siddoway said she couldn’t remember details.

Some intrigue surrounded the notes.

Siddoway said she only discovered her notes last week; she said they were misfiled in her home office in Terreton, where she also runs her family’s sheep operation. She passed the notes on to the State Board’s attorneys — who passed them on to Woodard on Saturday, two days before the start of the trial.

Noting that Siddoway had received a records request and subpoena months ago, Woodard objected to having the notes admitted into evidence at the last minute. The notes weren’t admitted as evidence, but still were discussed at length during Siddoway’s testimony.

More reading: Click here for our in-depth coverage of the proposed Phoenix purchase.

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. 

Trustees Wednesday voted to end the college’s contract with Gregory South, hired as interim president in December 2022, Kaye Thornbrugh of the Coeur d’Alene Press reported.

South’s tenure in the president’s office was short, and illustrative of the politics on a divided NIC board.

On a 3-2 vote, the board hired South as interim president, giving him an 18-month contract. That came after the board placed President Nick Swayne on paid administrative leave.

Within a matter of months, a judge ordered NIC to reinstate Swayne. But while Swayne returned to the president’s job, South remained on the payroll as well.

South still ranks as NIC’s highest-paid employee — for now — at a salary of $235,000. Swayne makes $230,000 per year.

Meanwhile, the board took no action Wednesday on another matter: a judge’s order to turn over an investigative report to Swayne. The report examines claims by a former employee, who accused Swayne of “retaliatory treatment and retaliatory discharge,” Thornbrugh reported.

On a 3-2 vote Wednesday, the board assigned legal counsel to resolve the open records issue in the most “cost effective and prudent” way possible, Thornbrugh reported.

First, the for-profit online giant wanted to affiliate with a public university. Second, the University of Idaho was in competition with other unidentified bidders.

“They always used plurals,” Green, the U of I president, said in an Ada County courtroom Wednesday morning.

And Green went on to explain that he didn’t press for names, for tactical reasons. Brokers like Tyton Partners, Phoenix’s financial advisers, work for a seller, trying to drive up competition, and they’re not in the business of divulging names to prospective buyers. Saying he didn’t want to look like he’d “just fallen off the turnip truck,” Green took Tyton at its word.

In nearly two hours of testimony, Green offered new insights into the Phoenix purchase — a polarizing $685 million deal that he says could transform rural online education and provide the U of I millions of dollars in annual revenue. But the deal would also align the U of I with a partner with a half century of reputational baggage, and potentially leave the U of I on the hook for up to $10 million a year in financing costs.

Green is at once a peripheral and pivotal figure in the civil trial unfolding in district court this week.

Green is not a defendant, and nor is the U of I. Attorney General Raúl Labrador is suing the State Board of Education over the closed-door meetings that led up to their May 18 public vote endorsing the Phoenix purchase.

But Green plays a central role, because the State Board took much of its direction from him. The board held its contested closed meetings based on Green’s assertion that the U of I was in a high-speed, high-stakes competitive bidding process.

Green also is a central player in Labrador’s lawsuit. Over two days in court, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard has implied that the State Board trusted Green and demanded no details about the U of I’s unidentified competitors. Woodard has also tried to discredit Green — since most of Green’s information came from Tyton, which had a vested interest in creating an air of competition.

On the witness stand Wednesday, Green talked at greater length and in greater detail than ever before about the U of I’s pursuit of Phoenix. His testimony offered brand-new information and behind-the-scenes details:

The first overture. Green said he first heard that Phoenix was on the market on Jan. 27 — but not from the university or Tyton. He said he first heard about the possibility from a contact with Wells Fargo, a bank that helped the U of I finance a 2020 plan to outsource operations of its steam plant. Green said he began talking to Tyton on Feb. 1. The Jan. 27 conversation is a new wrinkle in the U of I’s public stated timeline, which it had already rewritten after an Idaho Education News story called its original narrative into question.

A newly identified bidder. On Wednesday, the name of another suitor finally came to light: UMass Global, a nonprofit affiliated with the University of Massachusetts. A March 16 internal email from Tyton managing director Greg Finkelstein named UMass Global, the U of I and the University of Arkansas as would-be buyers.

Woodard used Finkelstein’s email as an exhibit. And while the email supports the narrative about competition, Woodard also appears to be using the document to challenge the board’s knowledge of the marketplace. Woodard has asked board members about UMass Global, and no board member has said they’d heard of the nonprofit.

‘Project Neptune’ PowerPoints. Woodard also introduced PowerPoint presentations the U of I created for closed-door State Board meetings on March 22 and April 25. The presentations were titled “Project Neptune,” a code name for Phoenix, frequently used by Tyton and U of I officials.

The PowerPoints say little about competition. But under questioning from Woodard, Green said there really wasn’t much to say about competition — except that it existed. But Green said he and the board discussed competition in these meetings.

The Arkansas vote. On April 24, the University of Arkansas’ board of regents narrowly voted to reject a Phoenix purchase. That public vote was covered locally and nationally, and was well-known to State Board members when they again met behind closed doors the following day. On Wednesday, Green testified that he still considered Arkansas a rival. “I was pleased with the vote,” Green said, “but they were clearly going to try to move forward. … They had a head start on us.”

State Board members have repeatedly said they considered Arkansas a competitor, even into May. The evidence is mixed. University of Arkansas President Donald Bobbitt has said he thought he could pursue a purchase without trustee support — and he did just that, according to a court statement from Finkelstein. But through a spokesman, Bobbitt had also said it would be difficult to proceed without the board’s backing.

A bid for exclusivity. At some point in the April executive session, a State Board member suggested that Green approach Tyton about negotiating exclusively with Phoenix. Green liked the idea, he said, “(because) we were about to spend a lot of money on due diligence.” Not surprisingly, Tyton said he wanted to keep as many bidders as possible in the mix. “To this day, we’re not exclusive, although we think we’re in a pretty good position,” Green said Wednesday.

The trial, which continues and could conclude Thursday, is crucial to the U of I’s buying position. Labrador wants District Judge Jason Scott to throw out the State Board’s May 18 vote supporting the Phoenix purchase — a ruling that could stymie the sale. And even if the State Board prevails in court, the U of I still needs approval from its accreditors, and a U of I-affiliated nonprofit must secure financing for the purchase.

The U of I hopes to close the deal early this year.

Other Wednesday developments

Other testimony Wednesday focused on the crux of the lawsuit, and the three closed State Board meetings. The board held closed executive sessions under a section of state law that covers purchases that pit a state agency against other public bidders, from another state or another nation.

That’s why the case centers on competition — and whether the U of I was vying with other public bidders.

Some other developments from Wednesday:

• Kent Nelson — the U of I’s special counsel, working on the Phoenix sale — said he engineered the closed meetings. Nelson said he knew of other Phoenix bidders, namely Arkansas. He requested the State Board use the exemption covering competitive negotiations. Nelson, who has worked on state education legal issues since 1998, said he could not recall any similar closed meetings invoking this section of law.
• State Board President Linda Clark also discussed the process surrounding closed meetings. As in this case, a college or university requests a closed meeting, and works with the State Board’s staff and in-house deputy attorney general to iron out the details. “I’ve been on the board for eight years and this process has served us well.”
• State Board member Cally Roach pushed back against one of Woodard’s recurring arguments — that board members should have done their own research about other Phoenix bidders, and the need for closed meetings. “That would be a hindrance to the whole state governance system … It wouldn’t be very productive.”

More reading: Click here and here for previous trial coverage. And click here for our in-depth coverage of the Phoenix purchase.

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.

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.

Straightforward answers to those questions are unlikely anytime soon. 

“This feels like a chicken-and-egg scenario,” Pocatello/Chubbuck Trustee Heather Clarke said at a special meeting Tuesday. 

The district’s insurance provider, Idaho Counties Risk Management Program or ICRMP, can’t say exactly how much it will cover until it has plans for the rebuild in hand (a rough estimate is that the total will be over $20 million). But trustees — and some Pocatello voters — want definitive answers from the insurance company before they decide how to move forward. 

Simply put, the parties seem to be at an impasse. 

“We’re as close as we can get until we take this next step of going into the design and planning phase,” Seth McClure, an independent insurance adjuster hired by ICRMP, told trustees Tuesday. 

For their part, trustees have spent months debating whether to ask taxpayers to chip in (again) for the Highland rebuild, to cover upgrades that go beyond what ICRMP will fund. 

Moving forward has become a saga, and it’s far from over. As McClure told trustees: “Pack your patience.”

While there are no hard-and-fast answers yet, McClure did illuminate some new details about the work going on behind the scenes of the catastrophe that caught statewide attention last spring. Here’s what we know.

Insurance after the fire: “What you had is what you get”

The gist of an hours-long presentation McClure gave to Pocatello trustees: “What you had is what you get.”

There’s a phrase that goes along with that, which Pocatello/Chubbuck School District’s director of business operations, Jonathan Balls, has memorized by now: “like, kind and quality.”

It means that the insurance will only pay to restore Highland’s damaged D-wing to the closest approximation of what existed before the fire. Affected gyms and classrooms will remain the same size, be rebuilt with similar materials, and include similar contents — unless doing so would violate code or if the materials are now obsolete. For example, if there were “massive wood ceiling trusses” in place before the fire, those would likely be rebuilt with updated materials. 

Updates and improvements will only be paid for if code requires them. If trustees want to take this opportunity to upgrade and improve the school, that will have to come from district coffers. 

But now’s the time to make changes, McClure advised trustees, “rather than saying, oh we’ll rebuild it as is, but then 10 years from now you knock down to rebuild something completely new.” 

Some good news: the district’s deductible is “insanely small,” at $2,500, McClure said. “You’re really fortunate to have that.”

He anticipates ICRMP will end up covering more than $20 million toward the rebuild. 

Getting these answers, however hazy or incomplete, has taken months of work and oversight from dozens of insurance companies. 

“Big loss, big exposure, lots of dollars:” Behind the scenes of a monumental insurance claim

April 21, 2023. 

McClure will never forget that day, when a 6:30 a.m. phone call informed him of the fire blazing at Highland High: “I knew we were dealing with something big.”

It triggered investigations by a handful of agencies and companies. Ultimately, it was ruled accidental, with no entity held liable. 

From there, ICRMP started working to catalog and assess the losses — efforts which have been overseen by dozens of companies. 

It’s a major claim, with “big loss, big exposure, and lots of dollars.” So ICRMP has a backup: it insures itself with County Reinsurance Limited. And County Reinsurance has its own backup — more than 20 different companies, known as an insurance market. “Each take a piece of the pie” to cover the expenses, McClure said. 

All told, “there’s 20-25 different sets of eyes looking at everything.”

And the insurance company has called in a slew of experts, including:

• A fire investigator
• A structural engineer
• A building consultant
• A contents consultant
• A forensic accountant

It’s a complicated process, but “there’s a rhyme and a reason and a method to the madness,” McClure said. 

At the meeting, Board Chair Deanna Judy pushed for “straightforward answers,” and expressed frustration at having to make decisions without them.

“We have kids that need a place to be,” she said. 

Trustees will have to decide by late March, when ballot language is due, if they will run another bond ask in May. 

The teens administered CPR to an infant doll, stopped a bleed, gave an EpiPen and demonstrated food safety techniques.

Culinary skills and health safety and two certified trades for Elevate teenagers.

Elevate Academy is a 6-12 grade career technical charter school in its 5th year, serving “at-risk” students or those with chronic absenteeism, underperforming test scores or challenging life circumstances. Students rotate through eight trades and eventually specialize in one.

Teachers aimed for this initial “You Plus Me Equal Community” event to allow students to teach the community, and also show them what it means to be a good community partner and employee.

“Our kids are going to be able to help you if you have a stroke, if you’re bleeding. [They know how] to use an EpiPen,” explained medical arts teacher Diana Mysinger, who has been at the school since it opened five years ago.

At the event, students Carrie Kamerman and Rylea Dewitt taught infant CPR in detail, including how many compressions per minute to administer, where and how deep to press down on the chest, and even what to do if you only have one hand available while administering CPR.

For the past few weeks, Carrie and Rylea would finish their school work and then find a quiet place to practice their presentation. They also made flyers to hand out to attendees.

“We really love doing big projects like these,” Carrie explained. “They are really fun to us. They help us get out of our comfort zone…and prepare us for the real world.”

Rylea said she invests more in projects like these over traditional school assignments: “I learn more from it because I’m working harder at it.”

Carrie and Rylea both want to pursue careers in the medical field — Carrie wants to be a labor and delivery nurse and Rylea an emergency medical technician (EMT). Both will earn certifications at Elevate that start them on those medical paths — they will graduate with medical assistant (MA) and certified nurse assistant (CNA) certifications.

Students used core classes to prepare for the event, working on writing their presentations and sending out emails about the event in their English class, analyzing statistics in their math class and studying bacteria in their science class.

It’s this teamwork among instructors that English teacher Michele Bonneau loves about Elevate. “We have that ability to just work together constantly to ensure that our kids are getting what they need.”

Several parents walked around the presentations, the faces of their kids lighting up when they saw them approach their booth. Bonneau explained that she and her team called every single parent before the day, inviting them to come.

Success for Elevate centers not on test scores but around seeing students using the skills they developed in school to successfully navigate life as an adult. A student cannot graduate without making a specific “life plan.”

Bonneau said it’s not always easy working with the students at Elevate, but it’s rewarding. She marveled at what the students have overcome stating, “There are kids here who show up every day, despite the fact that they have some incredibly challenging home circumstances, and it’s really cool to see what they can do.”

Mysinger also acknowledged the difficulties her students face in life, holding up a simple sign that read, “E+R=O,” or “Events+Response=Outcome.”

“This is something that we teach every day. You can come in with the worst attitude in the entire world. You can have a horrible event, how do we respond to it? (That’s what creates) the (outcome) of our day.”

Bonneau anticipated continuing this event in the future. “A lot of these kids have struggled with school and things haven’t come easily to them for a variety of reasons…but by and large they all had such pride in their projects. And that just feels really good.”

Last spring, only 64% of the state’s juniors took the college entrance exam on the school-sponsored SAT Day.  In 2022, 97% took the exam.

SAT exams are no longer required, but all schools must offer them 

—Districts and charters can choose to require the exam “to enforce participation at their discretion,” even though the state does not require them (the state’s requirements are the minimum).
—Since 2020, many colleges and universities have dropped SAT and ACT scores as an admission requirement, though students can often opt to include them in their applications.
—Still worth taking? The Idaho Department of Education advises students that “high scores on college entrance exams can help make a student’s application for scholarships or college admission more competitive.”
—For more information on the SAT and other exams, check out our Spelling it Out. 

At the same time, scores jumped — 34% of test takers met both benchmarks on the exam, an increase from 28% the year prior. Reaching the benchmarks indicates college readiness in two content areas: reading and writing, and math. 

The decline in participation comes after the State Board of Education stopped mandating that Idaho students take a college entrance exam to graduate, as was the case in pre-Covid years. 

Because the exams are no longer required, statewide SAT results were not publicly shared in 2023, like they usually are. 

EdNews requested the 2023 SAT Day results at the end of November, and did not receive them for another two months. Maggie Reynolds, a spokesperson for the IDE, said the delay was due to difficulty obtaining the data from the College Board. 

Those results show that while participation hit a low, scores are the highest they’ve been in five years. 

For a complete dataset on SAT Day performance by district, go here. For a complete dataset on SAT Day performance by school, go here.

Statewide SAT scores since 2019

Scores climbed this year, as greater percentages of students met academic benchmarks. Here’s a look at SAT scores and participation over the past five years.

Note: The 2023 SAT Day results provided by College Board have not been verified (i.e., “matched” to existing student enrollment records) by the Idaho Department of Education. The verification process improves the data quality, but does not drastically change it.

*evidence-based reading and writing

SAT Day data, by the numbers:

• 16,000: the number of Idaho juniors who took the exam on SAT Day in 2023. 
• 25,000: the number of Idaho juniors in 2023. 
• 5,500: the number of test-takers who met both benchmarks
• 6,100: the number of test-takers who met no benchmarks
• $1.2 million: the cost to taxpayers to administer the SAT in 2023

Top-scoring districts and charters

The districts and charters below had the greatest percentage of students meeting both SAT benchmarks in the state. They all also had relatively small numbers of test-takers. 

A number of districts’ and charters’ data was redacted, so not all are represented here.

Performance of districts with highest number of test takers

Here’s a look at SAT performance at the districts with the greatest number of test-takers. 

This year’s SAT School Day in Idaho will only be offered digitally for the first time, and will occur sometime between March 4 and April 26. 

Idaho Education News data analyst Randy Schrader contributed to this report. 

This is the week each year that we celebrate education choice. Those across the political spectrum have recognized the need to provide kids with more options, whether they be public, private, religious, charter or magnet. Education choice means all the above. It does not mean shutting down public schools.

As of March 2023, there have been nearly 190 studies on the impact of education choice. Researchers have looked at fiscal effects, parent satisfaction, test scores, attainment, civic values, school safety and racial integration.

Remarkably, 84% of studies show a positive effect, 10% show no impact, and 6% show a negative result.

Studies were completed in red states and blue states, in those rural and urban. With 187 studies now published, we have more information on the impact of education choice than ever before.

When it comes to student test scores, researchers across five states and Washington, D.C., produced 17 pieces of analysis. Eleven found that vouchers and scholarships improved test scores for at least some students. Four studies found no effect, while three found that vouchers and scholarships negatively impacted test scores for certain groups.

Seven studies across five states and Washington, D.C. examined the educational attainment of students in four voucher programs, one tax-credit scholarship program, and one privately funded scholarship program. Five of these studies found that the programs had a positive impact on educational attainment for some or all participating students, while two studies found no discernible effect. None of the studies uncovered negative outcomes for any student group.

Thirty-three studies across thirteen states and Washington, D.C. have examined parent satisfaction with education choice programs. These studies looked at three Education Savings Account programs, seven voucher programs, eight tax-credit scholarship programs, and at least seven privately funded scholarship programs. Of these thirty-three studies, thirty-one found that private school choice programs had positive effects on parent satisfaction, one study found no discernible effect, and two studies found negative effects.

Examining the effects of private school choice programs on public school student test scores, 26 of 29 studies across eight states and Washington, D.C. found positive effects. These studies analyzed nine voucher initiatives, one tax-credit scholarship, and one privately funded scholarship. Only one study found no effect, while two studies saw negative effects.

The studies examined two voucher programs and at least three privately funded scholarship programs across four states and Washington, D.C.. Of the 11 studies examining the effects of private school choice programs on civic values and practices, six found positive effects, five found no visible effect, and none found negative effects.

Examining five voucher programs across three states and Washington, D.C., eight studies found mostly positive effects on racial integration in schools with seven showing integration improvements, one detecting no discernible effect, and none revealing negative consequences.

The largest body of research we have is on the fiscal impact of school choice. Researchers have examined 24 voucher programs, 18 tax-credit scholarship programs, three education savings account programs, and one privately funded scholarship program in 23 states and Washington, D.C. Of the 74 studies reviewed, 68 found that these programs generated net savings for taxpayers. Another 5 studies found the programs to be cost-neutral, while 5 estimated net costs. However, 4 of the studies that found net costs also reported net savings over the long term, with only short-term costs.

Finally, across four states and Washington, D.C., eight studies examined the impact of five voucher programs and three privately funded scholarship programs on school climate and safety. All eight studies found that educational choice programs had positive effects on school climate and safety, with none finding negative outcomes.

The point here is that every program is different. Every state is different. Every child is different. It shouldn’t matter what school a child is attending, so long as they are receiving a quality education.

It’s easy to understand why increasing numbers of Americans support education choice. The facts and the research don’t lie.

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.”

That means it could be Thursday, or later, before an Ada County judge issues a ruling that could have major implications for the University of Idaho’s proposed University of Phoenix purchase. Attorney General Raúl Labrador has argued that the State Board violated state law when it discussed the $685 million purchase in a series of closed meetings, and he wants the court to throw out the State Board’s May 18 vote to endorse the purchase.

The civil case pitting Labrador’s team against the State Board was supposed to enter its second day Tuesday. But the scheduled 9 a.m. start time came and went, with no representative from Labrador’s office in court. Finally, at about 9:15 a.m., assistant solicitor general Sean Corkery arrived in court and asked for a one-day delay.

The reason: Gregory Woodard, the deputy attorney general and the prosecution’s lead attorney for Monday’s hearing, remains too sick to continue the case. During the first day of the trial, Woodard abruptly asked for a recess, complaining of an illness. Monday afternoon’s hearing was then cut short.

“It would severely prejudice our case to go forward with just me,” Corkery told District Judge Jason Scott, after the court came into session.

Corkery said Woodard believed he could return to court Wednesday.

Trudy Hanson Fouser, the State Board’s hired outside attorney, was openly skeptical. She noted that Josh Turner, who had been Labrador’s acting solicitor general, had been present for most depositions in the case, and was present in the courtroom for Monday’s hearings.

Turner was not in the courtroom this morning, and Corkery said Turner had a scheduling conflict. Still, Fouser said Turner or another deputy familiar with the case should have been prepared to step in.

“Four deputy attorney generals are being paid to be here,” she told Scott.

From the bench, Scott said he’d received a “strange” email request from Woodard Monday night: Woodard said he was “very ill,” but he did not directly request a recess.

And by failing to show up for the 9 a.m. hearing, Scott said, Labrador’s team requested a delay “almost through self-help.” While he did little to mask his reluctance, Scott granted the one-day delay.

Here’s a statement, in full, from Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s office: “Mr. Woodard has been the lead trial attorney on this case for months and naturally was the attorney prepared to try the case for our office. Mr. Woodard became suddenly ill during trial. After not improving, and out of respect for the health of others, Mr. Woodard emailed the court last evening to seek a continuance. We are grateful the court granted a one-day continuance to allow Mr. Woodard a chance to recover.”

That means the case will resume at 9 a.m. Wednesday, but the timetable is anything but clear. Corkery said the attorney general’s office will still need two more days to present its case. Fouser said she planned to call at least one witness of her own: Jenifer Marcus, the State Board’s deputy attorney general, who is a key figure in the board’s decisions to discuss the Phoenix purchase behind closed doors.

But Fouser said she had scheduling conflicts Thursday and Friday, suggesting her team would need a delay of its own. That could push the trial into next week.

After postponing Tuesday’s proceedings, Scott also lamented the pace of Monday’s hearing. Woodard worked his way through questioning only three State Board members, with each on the stand for roughly an hour or more. And seven months after Labrador filed his lawsuit — and after a cascade of court filings and sworn depositions — Scott made his impatience clear.

“It’s incredible that this is where we are,” he said.

Tuesday’s unexpected delay left three top education officials sitting on the sidelines, waiting for a hearing that didn’t happen. U of I President C. Scott Green, university legal counsel Kent Nelson and State Board member David Hill were seated in the front row of the courtroom Tuesday morning.

Woodard is expected to call all three as witnesses — along with State Board executive director Matt Freeman; Brady Hall, Gov. Brad Little’s attorney; and other board members.

The court case remains one of the biggest obstacles to the Phoenix deal, which U of I officials hope to close early this year. The U of I’s accreditors still need to sign off on the deal, and a U of I-affiliated nonprofit needs to secure financing for the purchase. But financing is effectively on hold because of the lawsuit.

Fouser was visibly angry after Tuesday’s hearing. She upbraided Corkery as he prepared to leave the courtroom, saying Labrador’s office had shown a lack of professionalism. Corkery only told Fouser he would pass on her comments, and he declined to speak to Idaho Education News after the hearing.

Afterward, Fouser again questioned Turner’s absence. “It just seems to me there must be some other motive.”

More reading: Click here for our special, in-depth coverage of the University of Idaho-University of Phoenix story.

State Board of Education members spent Monday defending their closed-door discussions of the University of Idaho-University of Phoenix megadeal.

And at one point, State Board member Kurt Liebich worked in a defense of the deal itself. As one of the first State Board members who had access to Phoenix’s proprietary data, Liebich said he quickly could see the urgency in pursuing the huge but tarnished for-profit online giant.

“I saw how much value was there,” Liebich said during virtual testimony in a Boise courtroom. “(It’s) inconceivable to me that (this) wouldn’t be a highly competitive process.”

The Ada County district court trial represents one of the biggest obstacles to the $685 million Phoenix purchase — a deal that could provide U of I with millions of dollars in new revenue, or leave the U of I on the hook for up to $10 million a year. The trial poses a public challenge to the State Board, and one of the largest and most polarizing decisions in the volunteer policymaking body’s history. And the case is thick with intraparty political tension: Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s June lawsuit targets an eight-member board tightly aligned with Gov. Brad Little.

At its heart, however, the civil case centers on the state’s open meetings law.

The State Board discussed the Phoenix purchase in three executive sessions, on March 22, April 25 and May 15. The third and final closed-door meeting took place just three days before the State Board held its only public meeting on the purchase, and voted unanimously to give the transaction the green light. Labrador’s lawsuit contends that the State Board failed to do its homework, and simply took the U of I’s word that other competitors were in the running for Phoenix.

Testimony from three State Board members Monday didn’t stray too far from the board’s established narrative:

• They again said they put their faith in Jenifer Marcus, a deputy attorney general who has been assigned to the State Board for several years. Marcus counseled the board on the closed meetings — held under a little-used legal exemption covering a transaction that pits a state agency against a public bidder from another state or nation. “I have the utmost trust in our deputy attorney general,” board member Shawn Keough said. “I took her professional word for it.”
• They said they still considered the University of Arkansas a potential suitor for Phoenix, even after that state’s board of regents rejected a purchase on April 24. In a closed executive session the following day, U of I President C. Scott Green urged board members not to count out Arkansas. Said Liebich, “I still in my mind believed that Arkansas was a potential competitor.”
• And even under repeated questioning, they still did not name any other would-be suitors. For months, the U of I and the State Board have not identified other potential buyers — and based on Monday’s testimony, board members seemed to have only cursory information about the competition. “There was never a number,” state superintendent Debbie Critchfield said, “but at every point it was explained we were a competitor in the process.”

Attorneys on both sides tried to press the boundaries of the open-meetings case.

Twice, deputy attorney general Gregory Woodard tried to bring up Phoenix’s $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, over complaints of deceptive advertising. The settlement, he argued, made Phoenix less attractive to any would-be buyer. Twice, defense attorney Trudy Hanson Fouser objected.

Fouser — the State Board’s appointed outside attorneys — said in her opening statement that she planned to point out Phoenix is turning a profit. These financials are just one reason why the board had every reason to believe the Phoenix bidding was competitive.

District Judge Jason Scott sought to rein in both attorneys. He wouldn’t allow Woodard to expand on the FTC case, but said he wouldn’t allow Fouser to bring up Phoenix’s financial health.

“We’re not litigating the wisdom of the deal,” Scott said at one point.

Despite the limited scope, Monday’s hearing got off to a laborious start. Keough, Liebich and Critchfield were each on the stand for about an hour or more — spending most of that time fielding questions from Woodard.

Then the afternoon proceedings came to a sudden end.

During Critchfield’s cross-examination, Woodard abruptly asked for a recess, saying he had become ill. After the recess, both attorneys wrapped up their questioning of Critchfield, then the trial adjourned for the day. The unexpected adjournment left at least two prominent witnesses on hold: State Board member David Hill had been called to testify Monday, but was left waiting outside the courtroom; and Green’s testimony was also on hold.

Woodard has already indicated he will call several other witnesses, including State Board executive director Matt Freeman, U of I attorney Kent Nelson, and Brady Hall, an attorney for Gov. Brad Little.

The trial is scheduled to run through Wednesday. It’s not immediately clear whether Monday’s abridged session will affect the schedule.

This is not a jury trial, and at the end of the case, Scott is expected to make his ruling.

The trial is a big hurdle to the Phoenix deal; Labrador’s team wants Scott to nullify the State Board’s vote endorsing the purchase.

But it isn’t the sole hurdle. The U of I’s accreditors still have to approve the deal, and a U of I-affiliated nonprofit still has to secure financing for the purchase.

U of I officials have said they hope to close the deal early this year. If the deal isn’t closed by May 31, either party could opt out.

Check back all week for complete trial coverage.

More reading: Check out our special, in-depth coverage of the University of Idaho-University of Phoenix proposal.

All told, nearly 21,000 students graduated in four years, and about 4,800 did not. 

Still, 2023’s four-year graduation rate remains far short of the state goal: that nearly 95% of students earn a high school diploma on time. It also holds with a familiar pattern — four-year graduation rates have hovered between about 80% and 82% since 2016. 

Four-year graduation rates 

The Idaho Department of Education’s recently-released data also shows that:

• At-risk student populations had lower graduation rates than their peers
• More than 50 districts and local education agencies had fewer than 81% of students graduate on time
• More than 100 traditional schools and charters had fewer than 81% of students graduate on time

Nationally, Idaho has one of the lowest four-year graduation rates. In 2022, it was ranked 47th, outpacing only Alaska, Arizona, and New Mexico, according to an EdNews compilation of data from state departments of education. Nationwide rankings from 2023 are not yet available. 

Read on for a closer look at the districts and charters with the highest and lowest graduation rates, and to see which student populations did not graduate on pace with peers. 

Highest and lowest graduation rates, by districts and charters

The charts below show the districts and local education agencies with the state’s highest and lowest graduation rates. As you look at the data, keep in mind that cohort sizes are not accounted for (some districts have small student populations, so their data skews easily). 

For a complete dataset, go here. 

Traditional and non-traditional (charter) districts with the highest four-year graduation rates

Traditional and nontraditional (charter) districts with lowest four-year graduation rates

Large traditional districts, ranked

This table ranks the state’s ten largest districts from highest four-year graduation rate to lowest. 

At-risk student groups are less likely to graduate on time, data shows

Students in foster care, with disabilities, or who are homeless were least likely to graduate on time in 2023, according to the IDE data.

Those student groups were among others (listed below) with four-year graduation rates lower than the state average. 

For some student groups, the State Board of Education sets different four-year graduation goals than it does for the general population. In each of those cases below, the student groups were far from achieving the target rate. 

Idaho Education News data analyst Randy Schrader contributed to this report.

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.

“It’s exciting coming to the table for this important work,” said Joyce McFarland, the education manager for the Nez Perce tribe. “I don’t think we’ve ever had the chance to have a conversation like this … I’m eager to see what this collaboration yields for Idaho’s American Indian students.”

Tribal education leaders from across the state will meet with partners at the State Board of Education and Idaho Department of Education quarterly for the next five years. The first meeting took place in December. 

Jessica James, education program manager for the Shoshone-Bannock tribes, said that though many tribal schools are ranked low when it comes to performance, tribal leaders have felt that their voices haven’t always been heard in the search for solutions.

“This program gives tribes a more meaningful role in these conversations, especially for tribal children on tribal lands,” she said.

The goals of the collaboration include improving efforts to:

• Consult tribes: Work with education agencies to increase, track, and ensure meaningful tribal consultation (a federal requirement)
• Learn from each other: Create two-way professional development between the agencies and tribal education leaders
• Increase self-identification: Understand the barriers to self-identification of Native American students and explore new ways to encourage self-identification (which is “essential to access available services and ensure more accurate data of student progress,  according to a press release from the IDE)
• Ensure accurate, actionable data: Ensure that assessment data collection provides accurate information that is actionable at both the statewide and educator levels

The collaboration will also aim to build partnerships with districts and charters on the tribal homelands of the Coeur d’Alene, Nez Perce, and Shoshone-Bannock tribes.

“American Indian and Alaskan Native students have unique educational needs,” McFarland said. “This grant is a step towards giving tribes a more significant role in identifying solutions for improving academic achievement of tribal students.”

The Nez Perce tribe was the lead applicant for the federal Department of Education grant, which was one of four such awards given in 2023. McFarland, James, and Christine Meyer, director of education for the Coeur d’Alene tribe, worked together on the grant application and implementation. 

The group will meet again in early March. 

Further reading: Take a look at EdNews’ special series, “Still Here: Tribes fight to be seen in Idaho classrooms”

He’s not a household name, for sure, but he’s getting plenty of name recognition in political circles through his efforts to promote the passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. A host of Republican office holders – past and present – are listed on his website (Balanced Budget Now!).

He adds former Idaho Sen. Larry Craig and former Gov. Butch Otter to his army of supporters. Earlier this month, Enns spent a couple of weeks in the Gem State, braving the snow and talking with legislators about the importance of a balanced budget amendment.

“Sen. Craig was on about 80 percent of our calls, and there’s something a little different when he’s on the call,” Enns told me. “He was a senior senator for so long, a congressman and he was at the forefront of this fight when I was in elementary school.”

Craig, in 1979, was among the state senators voting for a constitutional convention to consider a budget amendment and continued promoting the issue through his congressional career. Craig was a staunch ally of President Reagan, who spent two terms arguing for a balanced budget amendment.

With Reagan’s push, 32 states agreed to have a constitutional convention, but it was two states short of what was needed to force a convention. Since then, according to Enns, 21 states rescinded calls for a convention. Over the last decade, Enns has gotten 16 states back on board. He, along with Craig, are hoping that Idaho will be added to the list.

The budget amendment also is on the docket for the Constitution of States initiative, which has 19 states on board. Enns’ idea is to have a budget amendment as the only item for consideration in a constitutional convention.

We’ll see what happens on the issue in the Idaho Legislature, but there is plenty of political support for the cause – and plenty of urgency, with the national debt cracking the $34 trillion mark. Gov. Brad Little called for a budget amendment in his state-of-the-state address, and Idaho’s all-Republican congressional delegation backs a budget amendment.

A constitutional amendment would leave Congress with no choice but to put the nation’s fiscal house in order. Everything would be on the table – including cutting spending, reforming “entitlement” programs such as Social Security and Medicare and taxing the rich.

Enns says a balanced budget would not occur in a year or two, even with an amendment in place. Seven to 10 years would be a more realistic time frame, but work could begin immediately.

It’s all doable, he says.

“The entire federal budget is around $6 trillion, and there’s $2 trillion that has been negotiated with the debt ceiling,” Enns said. “That means you’d have to cut $200 billion a year for 10 years on a $6 trillion budget. That would amount to cutting 3 percent of the federal budget each year. I’m sure Congress wouldn’t be happy, but 3 percent of the federal budget is not that painful.”

It’s still a tall order, but as Enns sees it, “Congress would have to do what states do, and that’s prioritize. Up to this point, they (members of Congress) have been like spoiled rich children that have their own credit cards.”

Enns gladly will leave it to Congress to hammer out the details if a budget amendment goes into effect. He has a few ideas, though.

“The military, as we all know, could be slashed by 25 percent and we wouldn’t lose any of our readiness. If it (the military) were a private company, whoever is running that show would be fired,” Enns said. “Everyone says we would have to raise taxes. Why not spur the economy and create economic growth? People aren’t talking about that. But it would increase revenue, and the budget cuts might not have to be so drastic.”

Oil drilling, he says, would be one option for spurring the economy. Craig mentions lifting government restrictions on businesses, a longtime complaint from Republicans, as another possibility.

One thing is for sure – a budget amendment would change the scope of debate in Congress, and it might be a refreshing one. Instead of arguing over the debt ceiling, members would have to figure out how to make ends meet.

And almost half of these highest paid higher ed employees work at Boise State University.

Transparent Idaho, the state’s online checkbook, posts a running list of state employees who make more than Little’s $151,400-a-year salary.

Idaho Education News added to this list by requesting similar data from the state’s community colleges. (Transparent Idaho does not track community college salaries.)

Salaries don’t always come from state taxes, however. Coaches’ salaries, for example, may come partially or entirely from athletic program revenues.

Here’s a breakdown of the number of higher ed employees who make more than $151,400 per year.

Boise State University (124)

The top 10:

• Spencer Danielson, head football coach: $1,100,320.
• Leon Rice, men’s basketball coach: $950,560.
• Marlene Tromp, president: $459,680.
• Bush Hamdan, football offensive coordinator: $459,680.
• Erik Chinander, football defensive coordinator: $440,960.
• Jeramiah Dickey, athletic director: $432,640.
• John Buckwalter, provost, vice president for academic affairs: $355,680.
• Alicia Estey, chief financial and operating officer, vice president for finance and operations: $349,440.
• Eugene Hamacher, temporary delivery specialist: $324,480.
• Matthew Ewing, vice president, university advancement: $318,240.

Click here for Transparent Idaho’s full list of Boise State’s highest-paid employees.

University of Idaho (75)

The top 10:

• C. Scott Green, president: $465,235.
• Torrey Lawrence, provost and executive vice president: $336,482.
• Brian Foisy, vice president, finance and administration: $314,392.
• Lisa Victoravich, dean, College of Business and Economics: $293,509.
• Christopher Nomura, vice president for research and economic development: $286,645.
• Johanna Kalb, dean, College of Law: $281,050.
• Michael Parrella, dean, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences: $276,120.
• Jeffrey Seegmiller, director, WWAMI medical education program: $275,746.
• Suzanna Long, dean, College of Engineering: $258,107.
• Benjamin McLuen, vice president, university advancement: $251,638. 

Click here for Transparent Idaho’s full list of U of I’s highest-paid employees.

Idaho State University (54)

The top 10:

• Brian Sagendorf, acting president: $418,600.
• Pauline Thiros, athletic director: $267,781.
• John Fenstermaker, associate program director, Department of Family Medicine: $253,374.
• Rex Force, senior vice provost, vice president for health services: $249,260.
• Adam Bradford, acting provost, vice president for academic affairs: $247,000.
• Philip Van de Griend, director of sports medicine: $245,865.
• Eric Jensen, clinical associate professor, Department of Family Medicine: $245,549.
• Catherine Wooton, vice president, university advancement: $245,000.
• Ana Weinhold, clinical associate professor, Department of Family Medicine: $242,228.
• Walter Fitzgerald, professor, College of Pharmacy: $239,491.

Click here for Transparent Idaho’s full list of Idaho State’s highest-paid employees.

College of Western Idaho (7)

• Gordon Jones, president: $315,000.
• Craig Brown, executive vice president, operations: $201,406.
• Denise Aberle-Cannata, provost and vice president of academic affairs: $201,406.
• Kenneth Kline, vice president, finance and administration: $192,400.
• Nicolas Miller, vice president of operations: $175,000.
• Andrea Fontaine, general counsel: $156,724.
• Ryan Herring, vice president, human resources: $156,724.

North Idaho College (4)

• Gregory South, interim president: $235,000.
• Nick Swayne, president: $230,000.
• Sarah Garcia, vice president, finance and business: $169,600.
• Lloyd Duman, interim provost: $163,770.

Lewis-Clark State College (3)

• Cynthia Pemberton, president: $288,750.
• Andrew Hanson, senior vice president, vice president for student affairs: $155,861.
• Fredrick Chllson, provost, vice president for academic affairs: $153,608.

College of Southern Idaho (3)

• Dean Fisher, president: $271,513.
• Jeffrey Harmon, vice president, finance and administration: $162,692.
• Todd Schwarz, provost: $162,692.

College of Eastern Idaho (1)

• Rick Aman, president: $206,067.

The proposed raises don’t affect public schools, since K-12 salaries are set locally. But the pay recommendations apply to the state’s colleges and universities — which have used student tuition and fees to cover portions of the raises.

The state employee raises would come in two parts: a 1% across-the-board increase, and merit increases totaling 2%. The merit raises would allow agency heads “to distribute those funds as they see fit for retention and recruitment purposes,” according to a report from the Legislature’s Change in Employee Compensation Committee.

The next step will come Tuesday, when the budget-writing Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the recommendations. Depending on what JFAC does, the committee might also need to revisit the “maintenance” budgets that were approved Tuesday. Those budgets — totaling $5.1 billion, according to the Idaho Capital Sun — included 1% pay raises as a placeholder.

But approving pay raises is only one piece of the puzzle, especially for higher education. Funding the raises is another big variable.

In past years, the Legislature has used general fund tax dollars to cover only a portion of the higher ed pay increases. That has forced the colleges and universities to find the balance from another source, namely student tuition and fees.

That’s what happened this year, when the state’s four-year schools increased tuition and fees for the first time in four years. The cost of pay raises was one driving factor in the tuition and fee increases.

The pay raises recommended Friday are expected to cost about $52.8 million. However, only $27.4 million of this money would come from the state general fund. About $17.4 million would come from dedicated funds — a catchall category that does include student tuition and fees.

The remaining $8 million would come from the federal government.

Survey: Idahoans trust librarians, support private school vouchers

Most Idahoans trust librarians to choose which books are available in public libraries, and a slight plurality would support a private school voucher program if it doesn’t drain public school funds, according to the latest public policy survey from Boise State University. 

BSU’s School of Public Service and Idaho Policy Institute released the results of their ninth annual survey Friday. Unsurprisingly, Idahoans still want the Legislature to prioritize education — it’s claimed the top spot among legislative issues every year BSU has conducted the survey. But there were some surprises in this year’s results.

When it comes to state budget priorities, K-12 public education was second to workforce and affordable housing, an issue that state leaders have largely brushed aside as a private sector responsibility. And for the first time in the survey’s history, more Idahoans than not believe the state is headed in the wrong direction.

Nearly 43% of respondents said Idaho’s on the wrong track. Most pessimistic respondents cited overly conservative political leadership, high cost of living and Californians and other transplants bringing different values to Idaho. 

Newcomers were about 20% more likely to say Idaho is headed in the right direction, while people who have lived here for 10 years or more were 8% more likely to give a negative response.

“The people coming to the state are happy with the direction, obviously, because it brought them here,” said Matthew May, survey research director for BSU’s School of Public Service. “But the longtime residents that have seen the changes over time, they’re the ones that generally have the more pessimistic view.”

And many Idahoans don’t trust the government to fix things. When asked which level of government — national, state, county or city — they trust the most, one third of respondents responded “none.”

Idahoans are generally so-so on the state of K-12 public schools. More than two-thirds rated the quality of K-12 schools fair or better. Fair was the most popular response at 37% followed by good at 29%, and poor at 24%. Just 4% of respondents said the quality of public schools is excellent. 

Those results are very similar to last year’s survey. This year, quality of curriculum was the most common reason (31%) to rate public schools fair or poorly. Another 17% cited low test scores and 17% cited lack of funding. At 15%, teacher pay was fourth. 

But respondents were much more likely to highly rate their home school district. Three in four respondents rated their school district fair or better and just 15% said the quality of their district is poor.

The survey also asked about specific education policies, including some of the most controversial gripping the Statehouse this session. 

One question gauged whether respondents would support a private school mechanism, through which the state would help private school families pay for tuition. Survey-takers were asked if they’d support a plan that allows parents to take the roughly $8,000-per-student the state spends on K-12 public school and use it to enroll their child in a private school. Here were the results: 

• 49% in favor. 
• 41% opposed. 
• 10% not sure.

Responses were divided along partisan lines. Most Republicans supported it, independents were evenly split and Democrats were more likely to oppose it. Respondents overall were more skeptical, however, when asked a followup question: Would your feelings change if the plan “could leave some public school districts with lower overall budgets?” 

• 42% said they would be less supportive. 
• 37% said it would have no impact.
• 13% said they would be more supportive.

“What this suggests is that public support for this policy may depend on the specifics,” said Lantz McGinnis-Brown, research associate with the Idaho Policy Institute.

Other surveys in recent years have tried to measure public opinion on school vouchers but got varying results based on how the question was posed. Two separate polls by the Idaho Statesman and the Idaho Education Association simply asked whether survey-takers would support taxpayer money going to private schools, and responses were mostly negative. 

Meanwhile, BSU’s survey showed Idahoans overwhelmingly trust librarians to do their jobs; 69% of respondents said they trust librarians to “choose the books that are made available at Idaho public libraries.” Here’s how the responses break down further: 

• 37% said “a lot of trust.” 
• 33% said “some trust.” 
• 15% said “not very much trust.” 
• 8% said “no trust.” 

Those results come as Republican lawmakers for the third consecutive year are pushing legislation to create new penalties for libraries that host content considered “harmful” to children. 

High school students to speak at Women’s March

The Idaho Women’s March is scheduled to return Saturday, and this year’s lineup will feature several young speakers, including 16-year-old Yvonne Shen.

“While we’ve come a long way when it comes to gender equality, we still have a long way to go, especially in Idaho,” Shen said in a news release. “The Idaho Women’s March gives us an opportunity to make ourselves heard on issues we care about.”

The march will focus on health and reproductive rights, according to organizers. Three other high school students are scheduled to speak, along with House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, Idaho State Director of Planned Parenthood Misti DelliCarpini-Tolman and others.

The event is at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Idaho Statehouse in Boise.

Pocatello/Chubbuck trustees are considering running another ballot measure, but want to prove they’ve done all they can to drop the price tag and find other solutions first.

At a board meeting Tuesday, trustees discussed how they could reduce a potential ask, with options ranging from seeking corporate sponsorships to selling unused land.

And they discussed what would happen if a second bond ask failed, or if they tried to rebuild with just insurance monies — an option some taxpayers, including newly-elected Trustee Raymond Knoff, have pushed for. 

But insurance would only cover restoring the 1960s-era school as it was, with the exception of some updates to adhere to modern building codes. The new updates, including incorporating ADA accessibility, are needed but would cause complications — like rendering obsolete a downstairs weight room that could only be accessed via stairs. 

“We’ll just have another Band-aid solution if we just replace with insurance,” Trustee Heather Clarke said. 

Knoff, who has previously advocated for using the insurance money to rebuild and giving taxpayers a break, was silent during the discussion. 

By late March, trustees will have to make a decision about whether to go to voters in May, and how much to ask for if so. They’ll also have to decide whether to request financing for improvements to Century High’s gyms, as they did with the first bond ask. 

Their conversations on how to restore the school come as Gov. Brad Little is pushing for lawmakers to invest $2 billion in school facilities statewide over the next decade. Wednesday, he made an appearance at Highland to tout his ideas and highlights from his State of the State address.

For now, students are learning in a cramped building, and traveling off campus for classes and practices that have been outsourced to churches and Idaho State University. Even if a bond measure passed in May, a restored and improved school would be years away from completion. 

In the foreground of Tuesday’s conversation about a path forward was a recently-released architectural analysis that found Highland to be uninviting and in need of improvement, primarily due to its age. 

The Design West report, which was conducted in August, listed a number of issues, including:

• Uninviting environment: The high school is lacking when it comes to a “vibrant, engaging educational experience,” the report found. “More could be done to create more inspiring learning places especially, in the classrooms, using colors, materials, and finishes to create a more welcoming and engaging environment.”
• Undersized auditorium: The auditorium is undersized and “any attempt to enlarge (it) would probably prove to be impractical.” Plus its stage and control booth needed to be improved. “The design at present is austere, with very old beyond life cycle finishes,” the report found. 
• Lack of ADA accessibility: Certain parts of the building are not ADA accessible which “can expose the district to lawsuits since it is considered a civil right legislation and not simply a code issue.”
• Asbestos risk: Some of the school’s older tile may have asbestos.
• Small, outdated, and ‘extremely old’: The school has limited storage space; small janitorial spaces; an outdated counseling center; and science rooms that are “extremely old with inadequate millwork for a science curriculum”; whiteboards and bulletin boards that are “very old and should be replaced”.
• Questionable roof: A roof that may “become overstressed during a significant snow event,” and “may not survive a seismic event.” 

“There’s a huge need here,” Trustee Deanna Judy said Tuesday. “I feel like this report … shows that need really dramatically.”

To address it, “our first choice is not to tax,” Judy said, before floating the idea of seeking donations and sponsorships. “I want to show that we are doing everything we can” before resorting to another ballot measure.

No decisions were made at the meeting, and trustees plan to continue talks at coming work sessions.

The integrity of our nationally-lauded budgeting process started eroding last year. GOP leaders knocked House Democrats down to just one member on the budget committee, taking away our proportional representation. This month, Republican co-chairs ushered in new procedures, beginning negotiations by cramming skeletal budgets through at the outset instead of studying funding needs first.

The speed-budgeting spent about $2 billion per hour. This meant many omissions and errors, including one that nearly slashed annual teacher pay by $6,359. My Democratic colleagues rightfully voted against this careless approach.

The skeletal budgets leave critical initiatives unfunded such as the LAUNCH scholarships for in-demand job training, interventions for the dangerous quagga mussels threatening our water, and upgrades to bridges that pose a safety risk. Small in scope, but still important, are items like guardian ad litem programs, which advocate for children as they navigate foster care.

Budget committee leaders claim they will add funding, but they have backed Idaho into a devastating default budget. And they made it difficult to resolve harmful cuts. Once a budget is passed, rules require that two-thirds of the committee vote to reopen it, or seven of the ten members from the House and Senate. This threshold means a “no” vote counts more than twice as much as a “yes” vote. A few fringe legislators have the power to keep slash-and-burn budgets in place.

What is the supermajority’s motivation? It appears to be about power. Traditionally, House leaders will hold off on approving one budget bill to prevent the Senate from adjourning, before they get something they want, and vice versa. The new process yielded a default skeletal budget to fall back on, creating a “hostage” legislative leaders may be willing to shoot, with harmful repercussions for Idahoans.

Additionally, the house speaker can unilaterally hold any bill, including bills that correct budget holes. It’s reminiscent of the power House Republicans in Congress gave each member to recall Speaker McCarthy. Matt Gaetz used it to leave our nation with a non-functioning government for weeks while Republicans haggled over who would become the next speaker.

These changes put undue power into the hands of a few who can manufacture budget space for their personal agenda items, such as the school voucher scheme that both budget committee chairs have endorsed.

Idahoans deserve a budget that goes through a fair process and is responsive to constituents. It’s more important than ever that Idahoans speak up about their budget priorities.

One of state superintendent Debbie Critchfield’s top aides pushed for a well-known in-state finalist.

And in the end, the State Board of Education went its own way.

The Idaho State University president’s job came open on June 12, when Kevin Satterlee abruptly announced his plans to retire on Dec. 31. Eventually, 87 candidates applied for the job — an uncommonly large field. State Board of Education President Linda Clark attributes the interest to Satterlee’s successful five-year run as president — and the university’s “forward momentum.” Working with an outside search firm, a search committee narrowed the field to 12 semifinalists. After virtual interviews, the search committee forwarded five finalists’ names to the State Board.

The State Board hired a relative unknown for the president’s post at Idaho State University: Robert Wagner, a veteran administrator at Utah State University. Wagner got the job over a field of finalists that included C. Shane Hunt, the dean of Idaho State’s College of Business and a professor of marketing, and Cynthia Pemberton, the president of Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston.

In an interview this week, State Board President Linda Clark spoke in general terms about Wagner’s attributes: a broad administrative background; a strong set of references; and, after working 90 minutes south of Idaho State’s main campus in Pocatello, an innate fit with Southeast Idaho.

A month after the hire, Clark says she is comfortable with the decision — and the State Board’s efforts at public outreach. But in the end, the most important discussions and deliberations took place behind closed doors. Many details remain under wraps. And the State Board started negotiating with their hire days before actually making a hire.

The (somewhat) public component

During the week of Dec. 4, Wagner and the other four finalists crisscrossed the state, meeting with staff, students and citizens at Idaho State’s campuses in Pocatello, Idaho Falls and Meridian. They were on a tight and intricate schedule, orchestrated by the State Board and Idaho State.

These kind of site visits aren’t unusual, at the end of a presidential search. But this search included a second public component: an online survey. Idaho State received 1,182 responses — with 714 coming from faculty or staff.

The results remain secret. Responding to an Idaho Education News public records request, the State Board released only two pages of the 111-page document. The remaining pages were redacted, with the State Board citing a far-reaching public records exemption covering an applicant’s personnel information.

The two pages that were released reveal next to nothing.

By far, Hunt was the most talked-about finalist; 351 survey comments referred to him, as opposed to 171 comments about Pemberton and 136 about Wagner. The remaining finalists — Robbyn Wacker, president of St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, and Matt Cecil, provost of Northern Kentucky University — surfaced in 115 and 110 responses, respectively.

But the State Board documents were so heavily redacted that there is no way to know how many of these comments were favorable, or unfavorable.

The board received positive and negative comments about every finalist, said Clark, who downplayed the significance of the tally.

“They’re not votes,” she said. “They’re input.”

Lobbying the State Board

Hunt, the in-house candidate, enjoyed a bit of a home-court advantage.

In a handful of emails to the State Board — obtained by EdNews through a public records request — several of Hunt’s allies pressed for his hire.

“Students absolutely love him and his classes (yes, he insists on teaching even with all of his administrative responsibilities),” John Ney, an Idaho State marketing professor, said in an Aug. 3 email to state superintendent Debbie Critchfield. “His enthusiasm is genuine and infectious!”

“Dr. Hunt is a scholar, a teacher, and a charismatic leader,” former state senator and State Board member Diane Bilyeu said in a Dec. 12 email to the board. “He is like the Energizer Bunny!”

By then, the Idaho State Journal had weighed in as well. In a Dec. 1 editorial, the newspaper took the unusual step of publicly endorsing Hunt’s bid — saying that, in just three years on campus, he had emerged as one of Idaho State’s most prominent cheerleaders.

“He has the skill set to do the job, but in all honesty so do other people,” the Journal wrote. “What no one else has is Hunt’s genuine love and loyalty for ISU and Pocatello and his desire to tell the world how great of a place this is to attend college, live, work and raise a family.”

And for one person, who sent an anonymous Dec. 4 email to State Board chief communications and legislative affairs officer Mike Keckler, it had all become too much. The email said a “lack of impartiality, professionalism, and transparency” had contaminated the presidential search.

Pemberton had at least one prominent backer: Carl Crabtree, a former state senator who now works in Critchfield’s Idaho Department of Education.

“I will tell you no president or their people worked as effectively with the Legislature as Dr. Pemberton did,” Crabtree said in a Dec. 13 email to Critchfield. “If each university had provided that effort in relationship building, the results for their budgets, and their standing with the Legislature, would be very different today.”

‘I could get a read for the room’

One day later, on Dec. 14, the State Board brought the five finalists back to Boise for a string of closed-door interviews.

After the five hours of interviews, the board took no vote and made no decisions behind closed doors, Clark said. (State law allows agencies to discuss personnel matters in executive sessions, but agencies cannot make a decision in these closed meetings.)

Still, State Board executive director Matt Freeman began negotiations with Wagner on Dec. 15. “I could get a read for the room and kind of see where the board was at,” said Freeman, who sat in on the board’s interviews.

Freeman concedes that the board is walking “a fine line,” but he and Clark both defended the behind-the-scenes process.

If the State Board announces that it is negotiating with a finalist, or it telegraphs its intentions privately, other finalists are likely to withdraw from consideration. That could leave the board with few options — or no options — if negotiations hit an impasse.

After an extensive and expensive process — costing more than $200,000, in this case — the goal is to avoid a failed search, Clark said.

On Dec, 21 — a week after the closed-door interviews, and six days after the negotiations started — the State Board voted to approve a $420,000-a-year contract with Wagner. The unanimous vote came just moments before Wagner was formally introduced on the Pocatello campus.

Technically speaking, board members could have changed their mind at any time leading up to the vote. But Freeman concedes it would have been highly unusual for the board to change course at the last minute, with a well-orchestrated public announcement already in the works.

Skeptics have questioned the process. “To pretend that nothing has been decided until a unanimous vote is taken later with no discussion flies in the face of the spirit of the Open Meeting Law,” Betsy Russell, a retired Statehouse reporter and president of Idahoans for Open Government, told Laura Guido of the Idaho Press in a Dec. 22 article.

And questions about the Wagner hire come as the State Board faces a lawsuit challenging its series of closed-door discussions of the University of Idaho’s plans to buy the University of Phoenix. That lawsuit, initiated by Attorney General Raúl Labrador, is scheduled to go to trial Monday.

The high-profile lawsuit did not cause the board to change its approach to the Idaho State search, Clark said.

“I don’t think we had any heightened concern about it, because it’s the process that we do,” she said.

Wagner will start at Idaho State on Jan. 29. On his first day, he will be at the Statehouse, introducing himself to the House and Senate education committees. After a largely private application process, his time as president will be punctuated by a public start.

Kevin Richert writes a weekly analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

The move came just three days after the House State Affairs Committee cleared House Bill 384, which would force libraries to place challenged books in adults-only sections or face civil liability. Most comments from the public opposed the bill during a hearing Monday. 

Rep. Brent Crane, who chairs State Affairs and supported the bill sponsored by his brother, Rep. Jaron Crane, asked the House to send HB 384 back to committee, effectively killing it. Both Cranes are Republicans from Nampa. 

A replacement bill, negotiated with Sen. Geoff Schroeder, is forthcoming, Brent Crane said. Jaron Crane met with Schroeder this week, and they “put together a deal.”

“I want to applaud the work that they put in on that issue,” Brent Crane told the House. 

Schroeder, a prosecuting attorney and Republican from Mountain Home, last year was critical of Jaron Crane’s previous bill that proposed a $2,500 “bounty” on libraries. 

This year, Schroeder has co-sponsored separate legislation, Senate Bill 1221, that would require school libraries to implement content review policies and form committees to take action on challenged books. 

The Idaho Library Association, which opposes HB 384, is “neutral” on the new one, Brent Crane said. The ILA — a nonprofit trade group — tweeted after Thursday’s House session that it “has been invited to collaborate on a new bill” and invited followers to “check back for more details as we become aware of them.”

“We welcome the opportunity for involvement,” the tweet said. “We will continue to advocate for Idaho libraries.”

State gives out $13.4 million in school safety upgrades

Schools around the state have received $13.4 million to upgrade safety systems, and another $6.6 million will be dished out to cover high-cost projects. 

The House Education Committee got an update Thursday on $20 million in grants that the Legislature approved in 2023.

“I would have never thought that possible, so thank you,” Office of School Safety and Security Manager Mike Munger told the committee. 

In phase one of the grant program, schools each got $20,000. The money was used for security upgrades related to access control, like new doors, control panels and fencing, as well as security communication and “life safety” measures, such as smoke detection, Munger said. 

The security upgrades were supposed to be tied to a documented vulnerability, and earmarked for purchases that are durable and demonstrated as effective. 

Phase two — handing out the remaining $6.6 million — will involve higher-cost upgrades, ranging from $50,000 to $100,000, and the funding will be more competitive, Munger said.

School board quorum bill introduced

Responding to school board churn in his legislative district, a North Idaho lawmaker wants the state to clear up the definition of a board quorum.

Under the current law, a majority of school board members constitutes a quorum. In other words, three trustees from a five-member board can convene and do business.

But when a board has a vacancy, or multiple vacancies, it becomes more difficult to achieve a quorum. That was a recurring issue last fall in the West Bonner School District, after two trustees were recalled in August. In essence, the three-member board needed perfect attendance in order to hold a meeting.

A bill from Sen. Scott Herndon, R-Sagle, would redefine a quorum as a majority of trustees in office — or in the West Bonner case study, two of three sitting board members.

Without debate, the Senate Education Committee introduced the bill Thursday afternoon. The bill could come back for a full hearing at a later date.

Idaho is a wonderful place to retire, with relatively low crime rates. And, as some transplants have discovered, Idaho also is a great place to seek refuge from liberal politics. Just ask those in Eastern Oregon who are practically begging to become part of Idaho.

However, this state is not – and never has been – a place known for high wages or grand career opportunities outside of mining, logging and farming. For young men and women, Idaho is a great place – to put in their rearview mirrors as they drive out of the state heading for greener pastures.

Gov. Brad Little, with support from Lt. Gov. Scott Bedke and others, are trying to change those dynamics through the Launch program for high school seniors. Many of their fellow Republicans don’t like it (some call it outright socialism). But it is a way for giving young men and women a career path right here in Idaho, and making some parents and grandparents happy.

At the last count, more than 12,500 kids have applied for Launch grants – well over the 7,500 that were expected to apply. The grants cover up to $8,000 of the cost to enroll in an education or training program after high school. It’s a good deal, especially considering the rising costs of post-secondary education.

The governor is asking the Legislature for $75 million to cover the grant program. That’s a bargain by any measure.

In a pre-session news conference, Bedke – who has been to numerous schools to talk about the Launch program – told a story about his visit to an alternative school in Idaho Falls. Initially, he was greeted by at least a few yawns from the 78 students who listened to his presentation. But he saw the students collectively leaning in more as he talked about possible career paths.

Does it cover cosmetology? Diesel mechanics? Health care opportunities? Absolutely … and a whole lot more. “They saw a glimpse about how they could be more successful,” Bedke said.

And there’s evidence that this program can work in the real world, according to Rod Gramer, president and CEO of Idaho Business for Education.

“One of the things (Idahoans) take pride in is the quality of life, but as Cecil Andrus used to say, you can’t eat the scenery,” Gramer said. “We know that many kids don’t go to post-secondary because of finances. We also know that most jobs require some form of post-secondary education (and not necessarily a traditional four-year college or university). Launch creates a pathway for kids to pursue something in post-secondary.”

Ultimately, a high-demand career that can keep them in Idaho. “We need to have a trained, skilled and educated workforce if we are going to have a strong economy,” Gramer says. “We’re also dealing with a structural labor shortage, and not just in Idaho. If we can train and educate people, we will have the kind of workforce that we need to support our economy.”

Gramer says other states are catching on to the Launch concept, including Tennessee – which has had an even more aggressive program in place for several years. Every student who wants to attend a technical school receives a full scholarship.

All this was put together by a Republican governor and conservative legislature, Gramer says. “So, this is not a radical, or far-left Democratic idea.”

It’s certainly not a “socialist” idea, as some in Idaho will suggest. “I don’t get that,” Gramer says. “Is education socialism? The business community sees this as a way to find employees that we desperately need.”

Politically, there are reservations in the Legislature, and not just from those on the far right.

“Government handouts generally don’t work too well, and this is a big government handout,” said House Speaker Mike Moyle. “If (Launch is) done wrong, it will just be a money pit.”

He’s right about that – if the program has loose ends. But it’s the Legislature’s job to make sure it’s done right – and there is plenty of scrutiny and accountability along the way.

As Republicans like to boast, that’s a responsible way of doing business.

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.

Roberts, who was serving as the deputy superintendent, will be the first woman to lead Boise public schools in its almost 160 year history.

“I work with incredible people in the district,” Roberts said. “I love the Boise school district … and I am so incredibly honored to serve as the superintendent.”

Boise’s board of trustees unanimously selected Roberts, and several trustees became emotional while praising her.   

“Lisa Roberts is a trailblazer and an inspiration to women everywhere,” said board president Dave Wagers. “She is a strong, motivational leader who is well-qualified to take our schools to new heights.”

Roberts has spent over 30 years in the Boise School District, which includes 23,000 students at 46 schools. Her professional background includes serving as an elementary school teacher, elementary principal, administrator and area director. She also has served on the district’s negotiations team for 18 years. Additionally, she is on the Board of Directors for the Women’s and Children Alliance and on St. Luke’s Community Health Board.

Trustee Nancy Gregory, suppressing tears, explained, “she creates a culture where people feel valued and welcome, a culture that allows people to be successful and feel supported.”

One man, a carpenter in the Boise School District who has worked with Roberts for many years, expressed, “I want someone who’s going to pick up the broom if they have to. I want someone that cares about the students and the district. Someone that is all in, and that is Mrs. Roberts.”

He spoke of how impressed he was seeing her on a Friday night in November before the opening of a new Boise elementary school, helping unload paper boxes and set up for the big day.

Roberts and her predecessor, Coby Dennis, were both hired after serving as deputy superintendent in a district that often hires from within. He too clocked over 30 years of work in the BSD. Dennis was the second-highest paid superintendent in the state, earning $204,337 per year. Of Roberts, Dennis said, “it’s her caring for kids, staff and teachers that sets her apart.”

Superintendents run their school districts, carrying out plans for improvement created in conjunction with school board trustees, principals, other administrators and teachers.

In a 2022 report produced by RAND and the American School District Panel, over 95% of superintendents agreed that the job has gotten more difficult over the past decade. Researchers predicted this was in part from challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Dennis and Roberts navigated that pandemic and the resultant virtual learning during their service together. In a radio interview with Boise State University, Robert’s explained how part of their strategy included calling every family in their school district and evaluating their virtual learning needs.

They also addressed other issues like student mental health and declining enrollment. This year, their district focused on “Educating Today For A Better Tomorrow.”

Despite challenges faced by superintendents, in the same RAND report, 85% of survey responders nationally replied they were satisfied with their jobs.

The upcoming superintendent will start her new position on July 1, 2024.