Senate Education Committee hears testimony on parent‑supported instruction bill; committee holds measure for further review

At a hearing of the Idaho Senate Education Committee, members heard testimony on Senate Bill 10‑68, the “parent supported instruction” model, a proposal that would allow sponsoring school districts to assign teachers to work with parents who provide some or all day‑to‑day instruction and to create locally set education savings accounts for participating students. Steven Thain, the bill’s petitioner, described the model and its goal to expand options for families; school providers, teachers and parents spoke in favor and answered committee questions. The committee ultimately voted to hold the bill subject to the call of the chair.

Thain framed the proposal as a way to expand educational choice while keeping students enrolled in public schools. “Parents are not being paid a wage,” he told the committee; “instead, they’re given access to an expense account to support their child’s education.” He said roughly 11,000 students currently participate in parent‑supported instruction‑style programs statewide and argued that traditional brick‑and‑mortar districts need flexibility to compete for families.

Proponents who testified described day‑to‑day practices, eligibility checks and limits on reimbursable items. Janet Cox, director of student services for Idaho Home Learning Academy, told the committee her program reviews parents’ expense requests under district policies and specifically excludes travel and lodging: museum admission tied to standards can be reimbursed but travel and hotel expenses are not. “Learning happens anytime, anywhere,” Cox said, describing the program’s review process for special requests and examples such as a $77 incubator approved as a curriculum‑tied purchase.

Several classroom teachers and parents testified that the model preserves public‑school accountability while increasing parent involvement. Lisa Hewitt, a teacher who works with a parent‑supported program, said those programs provide in‑person learning days and opportunities for students to meet consistently with a small cohort and a homeroom teacher: “The relationships and the cooperation between parent and student and teacher is stronger than anything I saw when I was in a brick‑and‑mortar classroom.” Parent witnesses described health and social reasons that made full‑time classroom placement a poor fit for their children and said the program’s resources, testing and community supports helped students catch up academically.

Committee members pressed proponents on oversight, eligible expenses and operational details. Senator Ward Engelking asked about a bill provision that would limit the Idaho State Department of Education’s regulatory authority; Thain and a third‑party provider said the intent is to prevent overly burdensome regulation that could make the model infeasible. Engelking also asked how broad language about “eligible expenses” would be applied; Cox said districts create policies and that most families use funds for curriculum, supplies, enrichment classes and occasionally higher‑cost equipment with a special request. Senator Cook asked about the size of the education savings account; a provider said the amount had been adjusted and was approximately $1,800 per student this year.

Committee members also asked about instruction quality and student contact with teachers. Witnesses described weekly teacher check‑ins, online lessons and regional in‑person days. Cox said teachers reach out proactively when students are not participating and that the programs include accountability measures such as state testing and teacher oversight. The bill also includes language allowing districts to set pupil‑teacher ratios for participating students and to apply self‑directed learner provisions to students who meet or exceed grade‑level benchmarks using approved assessments.

The hearing closed without a final vote on the bill. A senator moved that the committee “hold Senate Bill 10‑68 subject to the call of the chair”; the motion was seconded and carried by voice vote. Committee members indicated they expect to hear further testimony at a later date.

For context, witnesses and the petitioner gave program and enrollment figures during testimony: Thain cited roughly 357,000 school‑age children in the state, about 313,000 enrolled in public schools, roughly 251,000 in traditional brick‑and‑mortar public schools, about 26,000 in brick‑and‑mortar charter schools, about 5,800 in virtual charter programs, about 11,000 in parent‑supported instruction‑style programs, about 27,000 homeschool students and about 17,000 private‑school students. Several witnesses said specific providers — including Overture Learning in Boundary County and Idaho Home Learning Academy partnered with HomeEd360 — are operating under models similar to the bill’s framework.

The committee also approved minutes from its Feb. 18 meeting by voice vote earlier in the session.

The committee chair asked the bill’s petitioner to return for additional questioning at a later meeting; no committee direction to draft amendments or to refer the bill to another committee was recorded in the hearing record.