Senate panel hears testimony on parent‑supported instruction bill; members hold measure

Boise — The Senate Education Committee heard testimony and questions on Senate Bill 10‑68, a proposal to authorize a Parent Supported Instruction model that would let parents deliver much of their children’s day‑to‑day instruction under the oversight of a public or charter school and give participating students an education savings account for eligible expenses.

The bill’s author, Steven Thain, told the committee the proposal would give public schools new flexibility to partner with parents and said about 11,000 Idaho students already participate in programs like the one SB 10‑68 would formalize. “Parents are not being paid a wage,” Thain said, arguing the bill provides families an “expense account to support their child’s education” and that the model keeps students connected to public schools and state accountability. Janet Cox, director of student services for Idaho Home Learning Academy, described how her program reviews and approves eligible expenses and said travel and hotel costs are specifically not reimbursable while museum admissions and curriculum tied to standards can be approved.

The bill would exempt parent‑selected curriculum in the model from the usual local curriculum adoption sections of the Idaho Code while still requiring instruction of state standards. It also would allow sponsoring districts to set the education savings account amount by local policy and to increase pupil‑teacher ratios for participating students so long as those students perform at or above the statewide average for nonparticipating public school students, according to language Thain read from the draft.

Committee members questioned accountability, the scope of reimbursable expenses, and how districts would staff and monitor participating students. Senator Ward Engelking asked about the bill’s language limiting the Idaho State Department of Education’s ability to regulate the model; Thain replied the aim is to avoid “regulat[ing] it out of existence.” Engelking pressed on the definition of “eligible expenses,” noting it could be broad. Cox replied the program uses local policies and a review team to approve expenses and cited common uses such as curriculum, enrichment activities, technology (generally one device per student per year), and occasional special requests for higher‑cost items tied to instruction.

Teachers and parents who testified said the model can preserve public accountability while offering individualized instruction. Lisa Hewitt, a teacher in a parent‑supported program, said, “We are monitored the same way any other public school is,” and described in‑person learning days, group homerooms, and regular teacher follow‑up. Parent witnesses described health, bullying or learning‑fit reasons that led families to enroll and credited the program with improving individual students’ performance.

After roughly an hour of testimony and committee questions, a senator moved to hold SB 10‑68 “subject to the call of the chair.” The motion was seconded, the committee voted orally in favor and the motion carried; no roll call tally was recorded in the hearing transcript. The committee chair said the bill will be heard again.

Background: Thain cited several Idaho Code sections in his reading of the draft, including language tied to curriculum adoption and self‑directed learner provisions. He also said districts currently operating similar programs use various third‑party providers such as Overture Learning and local partners named during testimony.