Senate hearing on school‑choice bill draws sharp opposition over constitutional, accountability and special‑education concerns

Senate Bill 1025, a proposal to expand Idaho's Empowering Parents grants and impose accountability rules for any nonpublic schools that take public dollars, drew extended debate at a Senate Education Committee hearing where witnesses sharply disagreed on constitutionality, special‑education impact and family equity.

What the bill would do: sponsor Senator Dave Lent told the committee SB1025 would expand the existing Empowering Parents program, increase per‑student grant amounts, prioritize low‑ and moderate‑income families, set accreditation and nondiscrimination requirements for participating private schools, direct new funding toward special education and reduce state reporting requirements that apply to public schools.

"This legislation was created and written to provide a threshold of accountability," sponsor Senator Dave Lent said at the start of his presentation, adding the package aims to make participation by private providers of public funding contingent on minimum transparency and non‑discrimination standards.

Major provisions described by the sponsor and staff during the hearing included: - Expansion of Empowering Parents eligibility to children ages 3–18 (the bill uses age‑3 eligibility for certain licensed early‑childhood providers but clarifies child care is not an eligible expense). - A stated increase of the per‑grant allocation (the sponsor described increases in the grant structure, including a per‑student grant valuation and family caps that phase upward to a maximum per household amount described in the bill). - Prioritization by income: the sponsor described a tiered distribution where 75 percent of funds are intended to go to families with adjusted gross income under $60,000, 20 percent to households $60k–$80k and 5 percent above $80k. - New accreditation and basic accountability conditions for participating nonpublic schools (background checks for staff, nondiscrimination, special education access and required assessments). - Legislative intent language directing $30 million in additional special‑education spending and a $50 million annual cap on the grants with a five‑year sunset on the statutory program expansion. - A red‑tape‑reduction provision that would have the State Department of Education review and recommend which state reports beyond federal requirements could be eliminated or sunset.

Concerns raised by witnesses and several senators echoed across testimony: Constitutionality and diversion of public funds: multiple witnesses and Senator Ward Engelking said the bill risks violating Article IX of the Idaho Constitution prohibiting public funds for religious instruction. "I believe this bill is unconstitutional," Engelking said, citing Article IX and Colorado precedent. Stoney Winston, superintendent of Fruitland School District, told the committee the bill "diverts public education dollars to private schools" and described the concern as a shift away from Idaho's constitutional duty to fund a public school system.

Impact on public school resources and special education: several public‑school special‑education administrators testified that Idaho's K–12 special‑education system is underfunded and urged any expansion not to reduce funding for existing special‑education services. Dr. Joy Jansen, director of special services and federal programs for Lake Pend Oreille School District, told the committee her district had added dozens of high‑need students and faces millions in added costs; Letha Blick of Valley View School District provided specific per‑student cost examples for medically fragile students and for services such as ASL interpreters and behavioral intervention.

Accreditation, testing and standards: advocates for private schools and homeschool groups raised practical…