Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Parental Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances constitutional amendment to enshrine parents' right to direct children's education
Summary
House Joint Resolution 1, a proposed constitutional amendment to remove language authorizing the legislature to require every child attend public school and to instead enshrine a parental right to educate outside public schools, was forwarded to the House floor after testimony and debate.
Representative Dale Hawkins presented House Joint Resolution 1 to the House State Affairs Committee as a constitutional amendment that would change Article 9, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution. Hawkins said the resolution strikes language that "the legislature may require that every child shall attend the public school of the state" and replaces it with a provision protecting the right of parents to educate their children outside public schools.
"We are catching up with what the Supreme Court has already done," Representative Dale Hawkins said, and described the change as recognition that "the right of the people to educate their children without government regulation outside of the public school of the state shall not be infringed." He and supporters said the amendment would align the state constitution with statutory protections for homeschooling and private schooling.
Supporters from the public and allied organizations testified in favor. Scott Herndon, who identified himself as a parent and supporter, said the proposal "is simply eliminating the butts in seats" language and defended the amendment as preserving existing statutory protections, including Idaho's compulsory-education statute (cited as 33-202 during testimony). Samuel O'Laire (director of the Center for American Education at the Idaho Freedom Foundation) framed the amendment in philosophical terms, saying parental authority over education is a foundational right. Arlene Herndon gave personal testimony about homeschooling her children and urged committee support.
Opponents and some committee members raised concerns that removing the current constitutional language could weaken the state's ability to require education or to enforce truancy/compulsory-education laws. Representative Achilles said he would vote no, citing concerns that the change could open the door to parents failing to educate children. Committee members also asked whether homeschool and private-school advocates had been broadly consulted; the sponsor said some had not had time to review but attendees generally supported the concept.
Representative Crane moved to send HJR1 to the floor with a due-pass recommendation; the motion carried. A recorded "no" vote was entered by Representative Achilles; other members registered concerns on the record during debate. The resolution, if passed by both chambers, would go to voters as a constitutional amendment.
